Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ELECTION EXPENSES

Address for the Return
of the Expenses of each Candidate at the General Election of October, 1951, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as transmitted to the Returning Officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, and the number of persons entitled to vote by post.—[Mr. Llewellyn.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Widows' Pensions, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many widows in the city of Aberdeen are in receipt of 10s. a week only; and whether he will review these payments so as to make for these widows provision commensurate with the increased cost of living.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar Question put to me by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), on 19th November, 1951.

Mr. Hughes: But my question relates to Aberdeen and not to Cardiff. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer about Aberdeen? Can he see his way to make some provision for these old ladies, many of whom are in dire straits having regard to their small incomes?

Mr. Peake: I told the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, that my records did not enable me to give the number of pensioners in a certain area. There are however in Scotland as a whole about 25,000

of these widows. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, these are part of the transitional arrangements and no change in them is intended at the present time.

Non-contributory Pensions (Needs Test)

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will take steps to simplify the rules and conditions of the needs test for the non-contributory pension, and meanwhile publish a simple explanation of the present conditions, together with examples.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I cannot under-take to introduce legislation for this purpose. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave last week to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan).

Mr. Houghton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that I am asking for something rather more than was contained in the Question asked by the hon. Member for Reigate? I am asking whether the Minister will give some examples of the complicated exercises in arithmetic which people must comprehend to know where they stand under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936.

Mr. Peake: There is an explanatory leaflet, which is as clear as we can make it, and of which the hon. Member has no doubt seen a copy, and for further information on this complicated subject I would refer him to the second chapter of the Report of the Assistance Board for 1949.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the so-called explanatory leaflet? Does he feel that for the sort of people the benefits are intended a sentence like the following is intelligible:
… the means of each partner are reckoned as half the combined means of the two, and each partner is allowed the benefit of the £39 deducted from means other than earnings.

Mr. Peake: Well, I think I can understand that—

Mr. Norman Dodds: But the right hon. Gentleman does not need it.

Mr. Peake: —but this is necessarily a very complicated subject.

Modified Retirement Pensions

Mr. Houghton: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will take steps to end the unsatisfactory position of those in receipt of modified retirement pensions who were insured for longer than the minimum period of five years required to qualify for the pension in full under the old scheme.

Mr. Peake: These people only had restricted rights under the contributory pensions Acts. They therefore fall within the classes for whose transition to the National Insurance scheme special provision had to be made. These provisions seem to have worked satisfactorily and I cannot undertake to re-open them now.

Mr. Houghton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, although they may have worked satisfactorily to his Ministry, they have not worked satisfactorily to the people who find their pension cut down even though they have far more contributions to their credit than many who are drawing pensions in full?

Mr. Peake: These transitional arrangements were devised by my predecessor the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). They are very complicated, but they will gradually expire.

Death Grants (Applications)

Mr. William A. Steward: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that applications by widows for death grants under the National Insurance Act, 1946, are being rejected because such applications are made more than one month after date of death; and, in view of the fact that this action is contrary to the ruling laid down in paragraph 13 of Leaflet N.I.49, if he will issue instructions that such applications are to be received.

Mr. Peake: This leaflet sets out the position under the current Regulations correctly and contains a warning that a claim may be prejudiced by delay. I cannot therefore agree that it is misleading. In any event, I have no power to issue instructions about the application of the Regulations to individual cases.

Mr. Steward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it states that a claim should be made within one month after the date of death and that delay in making a claim

may prevent its success, and that it goes on to say that, if there is a good cause for delay, the time for claiming may be extended within certain limits? Will my right hon. Friend consider the case of Mrs. Wilding, of 72, Court Road, Eltham, if I send him particulars?

Mr. Peake: These individual cases are decided by the statutory authorities, as the hon. Member knows. However, I would inform him that the leaflet to which he refers has been re-drafted and that a new issue came into circulation in June, 1951. I think the new leaflet is even more definite upon the question of the time limit than the previous one was.

National Health Service Payments

Mr. Hugh Linstead: asked the Minister of National Insurance what annual payments are made by his Department to the Ministry of Health in respect of the National Health Service; of what approximate amounts; and in respect of what sections of the Service.

Mr. Peake: The total amount estimated to be paid by way of appropriation in aid for the National Health Service in the year 1951–52 is £40,100,000, of which £4,100,000 is in respect of Scotland. The payment is a general contribution towards the cost of the Service and not in respect of any specific sections of it.

Mr. Linstead: Thank you very much.

Pensions and Benefit Rates

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of National Insurance how far pensions and benefit rates will be increased to meet the higher food prices.

Mr. Peake: I am not at present contemplating any increases of this kind.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Hynd: When the Minister says that he is not at present contemplating any increases, does he mean that he intends to bring forward legislation to meet these new increased prices to the full?

Mr. Peake: When I say that I am not at present contemplating any increases, that is exactly what I mean. I could not accept the view that any changes in price call for automatic adjustments in the rates of pension or of benefit.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Was not something said during the Election by the right hon. Gentleman's party about increasing family allowances if prices went up?

Mr. Peake: No. I think the undertaking that was given was that there would be a review in relation to pensions. As the right hon. Gentleman will observe, however, the Question relates to benefit rates as well as to pensions, and therefore I answered it in the form in which I did.

Old Age Pensioners

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many old age pensioners were in receipt of old age pensions at the last convenient date; and how many of this number were in receipt of joint pensions as man and wife.

Mr. Peake: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Miss Burton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any general idea as to how great a proportion of the total number is made up of married old age pensioners?

Mr. Peake: This is rather complicated by the fact that the hon. Lady's Question includes, as I understand it, not only retirement pensioners, but also non-contributory old age pensioners. It would be preferable if the hon. Lady would study the rather elaborate statistics which I am circulating and then, perhaps, put down another Question.

Following is the reply:

The available information is as follows for the end of September, 1951:

Retirement and Contributory Old Age Pensions.

(1) Men
1,475,000


About 70,000 of the men pensioners were receiving an increase of pension for a dependent wife under 60.



(2) Women receiving pension by virtue of the husband's insurance
750,000


(3) Women receiving pension on their own insurance
825,000


(4) Widows receiving pension by virtue of their husband's insurance
1,175,000



4,225,000


Non-Contributory Pensions
400,000


Of which 45,000 are paid to married women.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL SUPPLIES

Miners' Concessionary Coal

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average amount of free and concessionary coal delivered to miners' households in 1950; how this compares with the normal ration; and what steps are being taken to induce economy.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Ten tons and about two tons, respectively, Sir. Entitlement to concessionary coal is governed by longstanding local wage agreements, but I understand that the National Coal Board, in consultation with the branches of the National Union of Mineworkers, are doing what they can to effect economies in the various divisions.

Mr. Shepherd: As this concessionary coal amounts to five million tons per annum, is it not clear that there can be no inducement to miners to forgo their concessionary coal, which is part of their pay, unless some much larger cash allowance is made to them? Could not there be some agreement made to give a larger cash allowance, in lieu of this coal, which could be free from taxation?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will not in any way interfere with wages, conditions and coal concessions until the Mineworkers' Union deals with matters such as this?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a delicate matter. There is a network of local agreements, and the question has to be approached most carefully. It is primarily a matter for the industry and the National Coal Board.

Mr. E. Fenyhough: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that any young Conservative sitting on the benches opposite who wants to enjoy the benefit of concessionary coal has only to apply to the Coal Board for a job and he will get the concessionary coal with it?

Italian Workers

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of miners' lodges which have refused to allow Italian workers to be employed in the mines.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I understand that the number is 105.

Mr. E. H. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement as to what directions he will issue to the National Coal Board under Section 3 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, for the use of Italian labour.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The National Coal Board are anxious to use more Italian labour and they need no stimulus from me.

Mr. Keeling: As British miners—with some exceptions—will not allow Italian labour to work in the same mines with them, is there any other way of getting enough coal than by working some mines exclusively with Italians, even though it may take some time to train them as face workers?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is an interesting idea with a view to overcoming the difficulties, but I think it also raises other difficulties of its own, and in any case it is a matter for the National Coal Board.

Mr. William Blyton: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem will only be solved by persuasion and that if the big stick is used the problem will be more difficult than it is today?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and I should like to ask him for his co-operation in this matter.

SCOTLAND


Million Tons


Year
Imports from Overseas
Production
Use in Scotland
Shipments from Scotland*
Net imports from England†


1950
…
Nil
23·8
21·6
2·5
0·3


1951 (estimated)
…
0·2
24·1
22·3
2·3
0·3


* Including cargo exports, foreign and coastwise bunkers and supplies to Northern Ireland.


† Excess of imports from England over exports to England.


The figures for earlier years are published in the Ministry of Fuel and Power Statistical Digest, 1948 and 1949, except for imports from overseas, which are published in the Annual Statements of Trade of the United Kingdom.

Hotels and Service Flats

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power under what circumstances hotels and service flats are granted licences for additional coal and coke by local fuel overseers.

Priority Deliveries

Mr. Cyril Bence: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he can give assurances that priority in delivery of coal will be given to old people and occupants of tenements, where storage capacity is so small that stocks cannot be built up during the summer months.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Scotland (Statistics)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state for each of the last five years how much coal was used in, produced in, imported into and exported from Scotland; and what he estimates will be the corresponding figures for the present year.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister state now whether he can so organise his distribution of coal that Scottish coal will be used as far as possible in Scotland and in this way save freight charges?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that as a result of arrangements going back some time, it is useful for certain grades of Scottish coal to cross the Border and also for certain types of English coal which are required in Scotland to go the other way.

Following is the reply:

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The maximum permitted quantity is, in general, related to the needs of the ordinary domestic household. Hotels and blocks of flats are typical examples of larger premises, whose minimum needs in most cases


exceed the maximum permitted quantity, and, where the local fuel overseer is satisfied that this is so, licences are issued for additional supplies.

Mr. Hobson: Is the Minister aware that these establishments have not had any cut in their supplies of fuel but that the ordinary domestic consumer has had his supplies cut by the terms of the recent announcement? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is fair and reasonable?

Mr. Lloyd: These establishments have had a cut in relation to that part of their total fuel allowance which is accounted for by the maximum permitted quantity. It is true, however, that they have not had a cut with regard to the additional amounts allowed by the local fuel overseer. That is the kind of trouble which is inevitable when cuts of this kind have to be put into effect at short notice as the winter is approaching, because, I am advised, it would involve the issue of one million extra authorisations, which, I am afraid, the organisation is not able to do.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Will the Minister have a look at this question again, because it seems apparent that fires are much easier kept going, and heating is much more easily effected, in establishments of this type than in many hundreds of individual homes? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is better to have the heating in individual homes rather than in hotels of this kind?

Mr. Lloyd: I have sympathy with what the hon. Member is suggesting, but I have explained that it is not practicable, in the time, to do what we should like to do.

Stocks

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how the present stocks of coal in this country compare with stocks held on the same dates in 1949 and 1950.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: As the answer is a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As there are only three figures involved in the answer

to this Question, will the Minister say why he cannot give an answer now?

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid there are many more than three figures in the table I am proposing to circulate.

Following is the table:


Thousand Ton


—
1951 November (estimated)
1950 November
1949 November


All industry
5,189
4,137
4,385


Gas
3,233
3,109
2,852


Electricity
5,261
3,988
4,476


Coke ovens
950
765
811


Merchants' house coal
1,216
1,939
2,346


Other consumers
1,301
1,081
1,448


TOTAL
17,150
15,019
16,318

Prices

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can forecast a reduction in the price of coal; and at what stage in the industry's development he expects it to be able to absorb wage increases without increasing the cost to the consumer.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir, not at present, and I am sorry that I do not feel able to make the forecast which my hon. Friend asks for in the second part of her Question.

Miss Ward: While appreciating and welcoming the improvement in the conditions of the lower paid pitmen through the new wage award—long overdue—at the same time may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will bear in mind that the general community, old age pensioners and workers in other industries, are entitled to expect some benefit from the vast sums of money that have been spent in capital equipment of the mines? Will he kindly look into that aspect of the matter and give the House a full statement at a fairly early date?

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid that is a matter for the National Coal Board.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that the price of coal compares very favourably with the price of other commodities?

NATIONAL FUEL POLICY COMMITTEE

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made, to date, by the committee established to investigate wider aspects of national fuel and power policy, the terms of reference of which were announced on 9th July, 1951; what are the names and status of the persons now serving on this committee; whether interim reports or recommendations will be published; and when the final report of the Committee can be expected.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The Committee are studying a great deal of technical and economic information, and I cannot say when their final report can be expected. They have been asked to make interim reports if they can do so usefully. I will circulate a list of the members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this Committee will consult prominent industrialists and fuel technologists in addition to taking information and evidence from officers of his own Department and of the nationalised boards? Secondly, in view of the fundamental importance of publishing the findings of the Committee, will my right hon. Friend endeavour to expedite this publication?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider that second point. With regard to the first point, I am sure that the Committee will do what my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that there are industrialists on the Committee?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Following is the list:

The members of the Committee on National Fuel Policy and their status are as follows:

Chairman:

Viscount Ridley, C.B.E.: Chairman of the Northumberland County Council.

Members:

Mr. Lincoln Evans, C.B.E.: General Secretary of the Iron & Steel Trades Confederation.

Mr. N. W. Gardiner: Technical Director of Huntley & Palmers Ltd.

Sir Claude Gibb, C.B.E., F.R.S.: Chairman & Managing Director of C. A. Parsons & Co. Ltd.

Professor W. R. Hawthorne: Professor of Applied Thermodynamics at Cambridge University.

Professor W. A. Lewis: Professor of Political Economy at Manchester University.

Mrs. M. McIntosh: Tutor in Sociology at Bedford College, University of London; Member of the London County Council.

Miss M. R. Scholfield: Housing Manager of Stoke Newington Borough Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES

Power Stations (Output)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what planned additional megowattage will become available in each of the years 1951 and 1952 under the power-house expansion programme in the United Kingdom; how much additional coal will thereby be required for power-house consumption; and what steps are in hand to assure a proper balance in the capital development plans of the National Coal Board and the British Electricity Authority.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: As the answer must necessarily be long and contains many figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:
The plan approved for the British Electricity Authority was to commission 1,100 megawatts this year and 1,250 megawatts in 1952. When allowance has been made for plant going out of service, this should have given a net addition this year of over 1,000 megawatts and one of about 1,100 megawatts in 1952. Shortages of raw materials and the needs of defence may prevent these totals being reached, but I hope that at least 1,000 megawatts of new plant will be commissioned this year.
B.E.A. power stations consumed 31½ million tons of coal in 1950 and may consume about 35 million tons in 1951 and about 38 million tons in 1952, the increases being the result of the general increase in demand for electricity.
But this increase in consumption will be less in proportion than the increased supply of electricity produced. This is because the new stations being commissioned are used for 24 hours in the day and make it possible to restrict to shorter periods the use of older stations which are much less efficient and use much more coal to produce the same amount of electricity. Actually, if there were no increase in demand, the introduction of new stations would result in less coal being consumed. To illustrate this, a full year's working of the 1,000 megawatts of plant which, I hope, will be commissioned this year, will give a net saving of about 300,000 tons of coal, and a full year's working of the 1,250 megawatts planned for next year, together with the 100 megawatts left over from this year, should give an additional net saving of the order of 500,000 tons.


But demand is increasing, and, for the time being, the only alternative to more and more load shedding is to continue using the old power stations at peak periods to meet demands which could otherwise not be met at all, that is, would be shed. Thus, so long as demand for electricity increases at its present rate, savings in coal produced by the introduction of new, efficient stations, though great, are not sufficient to outweigh the increase in consumption to meet the extra demand.
The programmes of development of the National Coal Board and the British Electricity Authority are settled in consultation with me and there is full opportunity to see that as far as possible there is a proper balance.

Power Cuts (Warning System)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made in regard to systems for warning users of electricity of impending power cuts.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The electricity boards are continually trying to improve their local systems of warning by telephone and private radio. In addition, this winter, the B.B.C. will broadcast warnings on the Light Programme wavelength of 1,500 metres when load shedding is imminent. I should like to thank the B.B.C. for all the help they have given us in this matter.

Sir I. Fraser: How far has the telephone been used, and how far can the load shedding be arranged on particular days, fixed in advance, with particular firms?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that the telephone has been used to a different extent by the area boards in consultation with local industry. I should like notice of the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

Boilers (Specifications)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power at what steam pressure, and superheat temperature, boilers are now being supplied to the British Electricity Authority.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to Chapter 2 of the Third Report of the British Electricity Authority and Appendices 15, 16 and 17 of the same Report.

Mr. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whilst I anticipated that

answer, the information there is not quite correct and that there is ample evidence that Statutory Order 2596, passed in this House in 1947, has not been complied with?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of that question.

Factory Generating Equipment

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the policy of the Government regarding factory installation of generating equipment for use independent of electricity mains consumption, and particularly including auto-diesel sets, back pressure turbines and reciprocating engines; and whether he is satisfied that all contractual restrictions and financial discouragements have now been removed by the British Electricity Authority in respect of independent electricity generation.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: This is a matter I am looking into and I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Eastern Electricity Board (Building Extensions)

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what expenditure he has authorised on repairs, adaptations, additions and decorations to Whersted House, near Ipswich, since the property has come into the ownership of the Eastern Electricity Board.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: My predecessor issued five authorisations under the Defence Regulation 56A for the rehabilitation and extension of the Eastern Electricity Board's Headquarters at Wherstead, amounting in all to £111,500.

Mr. Hare: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this huge sum of £111,000 spent on a property which I believe cost in the neighbourhood of only £12,000 was in fact justified? Will he be good enough to look into it and report further on whether he finds there is cause for complaint about what is really a huge sum for this purpose?

Mr. Lloyd: I am prepared to examine this matter, but I am not at this moment aware how much of this sum has already been spent.

Generating Plants (Oil Firing)

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has considered the possibility for new generating plants of firing them by oil instead of coal.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I am already studying this matter and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it forward. The use of oil however arises more helpfully in regard to existing power stations.

Mr. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the policy of firing water tube boilers by fuel oil is a very expensive and uneconomic proposition? Further, is he aware that it has a very deleterious effect on men who have to work in the power stations, particularly so far as cleaning of boiler tubes is concerned?

Mr. Lloyd: I am advised that it is technically possible, and that in a very acute coal situation it may have to be considered.

YORKSHIRE ELECTRICITY BOARD

Mr. Charles Pannell: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will have the complete transcript of the proceedings of the Scarcroft case put in the Library for the use of hon. Members.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir. In the exceptional circumstances of this case my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is arranging for a complete transcript to be put in the Library.

Mr. Pannell: While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask if he is aware of the great service this will be to the cause of truth in view of the fact of the venom and malice imported in the Yorkshire Press to the reporting of this story?

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) what steps were taken in his Department to check the accuracy of the information upon which the former Minister of Fuel and Power gave an answer to this honourable House on 4th December, 1950, which subsequently proved incorrect;
(2) in connection with the incorrect answer given to this honourable House by his predecessor on 4th December, 1950, if he will make a statement as to whether he has exercised his powers under Section 6 (4) of the Electricity Act, 1947, of obtaining from the area board concerned information relative to this matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: In the time available the information had to be obtained and checked by telephone.
Arising out of my statement a week ago, there is a further development of which I should inform the House. When I saw the part-time members of the Board last Wednesday they brought to my notice information which showed that the officer of the Ministry who was instructed to obtain and check the information from the Board may himself have been aware of the inaccuracy of the answer he agreed with the Board.
I have instituted immediate investigations into this matter, which are not yet completed. I will certainly, if necessary, exercise my powers under Section 6 (4) of the Electricity Act, 1947.

Mr. Marlowe: Will my right hon. Friend report to this House the result of these inquiries as soon as they are complete?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will publish the records which he examined in connection with the incorrect answer given to this honourable House on 4th December, 1950, by his predecessor.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: No, Sir. This is contrary to precedent.

Mr. Donald Kaberry: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can now announce the names of the new chairman and deputy chairman of the Yorkshire Electricity Board; and whether he has any statement to make about the other members of the Board.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I have appointed as Chairman of the Yorkshire Electricity Board Mr. J. S. Pickles, at present Chairman of the South-West Scotland Electricity Board. He will take up his appointment tomorrow, 4th December.
I have accepted Mr. Newey's resignation with effect from Saturday last, 1st December. I have not yet appointed his successor, but hope to do so shortly.
I do not propose to make any change in the part-time members of the Board as a result of the recent case. Very full inquiries were made by the Director of Public Prosecutions and no charge was made against the part-time members. I am satisfied that they did not know that unauthorised expenditure was taking place and were entitled to assume that the responsible officers of the Board would obtain all necessary licences and consents from the Government Departments concerned, for the various activities of the Board.

Mr. Kaberry: Do I understand that Mr. Pickles is a Yorkshireman?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. He is a Yorkshireman who has absorbed economical ideas of administration while in Scotland.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Pickles has now left the South-West Board of Scotland, it would be a good opportunity for putting it under the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Lloyd: That is another question.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Can my right hon. Friend say whom he is appointing in the place of Mr. Pickles?

Mr. Lloyd: No, I could not say that yet.

METHANE GAS (SEWAGE SLUDGE)

Colonel Ralph Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how far the production of methane gas from sewage sludge by certain local authorities has proved to be an economic sources of fuel and power; and what further research on the subject is proceeding, or is contemplated.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The process is economic at large sewage works but not at small ones. Investigation is continuing into the fermentation process.

Colonel Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend think that in the nearly foreseeable future there is any chance of it being developed economically elsewhere?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it is only applicable to the large works, and there what it does is sometimes to provide enough power for the undertaking itself. I understand that at present there are about 1,000 million cubic feet of this methane gas produced, which is roughly equivalent to 23,000 tons of coal.

SOUTH-EASTERN GAS BOARD (BUILDING LICENCES)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total value of the licence granted to the South-Eastern Gas Board in connection with any works of reconstruction at the Head Office, Park Lane, Croydon.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The authorisations granted in connection with work at this office cover an estimated total cost of £307,707,

Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend make some inquiries why this very large expenditure is taking place, as the building seemed perfectly all right before it was taken over by the South-Eastern Gas Board?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot make a comment on an authorisation given some time ago, but I can, of course, make some inquiries.

SHOP AND BUSINESS TENANCIES (RENTALS)

Mr. Barnett Janner: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that on the termination of many shop and other business tenancies the tenants are being charged excessive rentals for continuation; and whether, in view of the hardship involved to tenants in obtaining alternative accommodation and losing the goodwill of their businesses, he will introduce legislation to deal with this position.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. Member is, I am sure, aware that under Part 2 of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act shop tenants may, during the period ending with 21st June, 1953, apply to the county court for a renewal of their tenancies on terms to be fixed by the court. Consequently, if demands are made upon them for excessive rentals their appropriate course would be to avail


themselves of the provisions of this Act. I am not yet in a position to make a statement about further legislation on this subject.

Mr. Janner: While fully appreciating what is contained in the Act to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, may I ask if he is aware that that does not go very far? There are many tenancies not covered and quite a large number of people in shop tenancies, surgeries and offices are being affected in consequence of the fact that there is at the present time a shortage of accommodation, and would he rapidly do something about it?

The Solicitor - General: The late Government no doubt gave consideration to that problem before the introduction of their Bill. That Bill was limited to shop tenancies, and at the present moment the whole matter is under review.

LEASEHOLD REFORM

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: asked the Attorney-General whether he has any statement to make regarding the Government's intentions to reform the law of leaseholds.

The Solicitor-General: I have nothing to add to the answer my hon. and learned Friend gave on 19th November to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West).

Mr. Donnelly: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if the Government do not do something about accepting a general principle of leasehold enfranchisement in this matter, they are in for a first-class row in Wales; and as this is one of the things which his party did not promise at the General Election, is there any hope of us getting it?

The Solicitor-General: The Government are fully aware of the necessity for taking action with regard to the problem left behind by the late Government.

LEGAL AID SCHEME (CERTIFICATES)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General how many certificates were granted during the first year of the

legal aid scheme; and how many of them were granted in respect of proceedings in the divorce court.

The Solicitor-General: By the end of the first year of the Legal Aid Scheme, 35,820 Civil Aid Certificates had been issued. Five hundred and thirty-seven were awaiting issue to applicants who had accepted the terms offered to them. Of the 36,357 certificates issued and awaiting issue, 29,365 were in respect of matrimonial proceedings in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While it is no reflection upon the scheme, which in the main provides wider general facilities for divorce proceedings, will the hon. and learned Gentleman examine complaints which have been made that applicants under the scheme are in some cases paying more for undefended cases than they would have had to pay if they had employed a private solicitor?

The Solicitor-General: We shall be very glad to examine any information on that matter which is put before us.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (Distribution)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food if he will accept the suggestion of the trade that representatives should discuss with him the problem of distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I am always ready to consider constructive suggestions on such matters.

Miss Burton: Would it be possible to get a definite answer from the Ministry? There is a great deal of dissatisfaction about this matter. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would agree to discuss, and publish the results of that discussion, with the trade upon the distribution of fresh fruit and vegetables?

Major Lloyd George: I am prepared to consider anything upon this important and difficult matter. It is only the Retailers Federation which has issued a pamphlet on the matter, which I think referred to a Commission. There is no doubt of what they have in mind, and I


would welcome any suggestion put forward which would lead to a solution of the problem.

Miss Burton: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing a Commission to inquire into this matter?

Major Lloyd George: I will consider it.

Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister recall that the late Government, on the eve of the Election, produced a scheme without any consultation with the trade?

Fish Landings, Scotland (Distribution)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Food what steps he proposes to take to make available promptly, daily and at moderate cost for the people of London and other south of England consuming centres the large supplies of fish landed at Scottish ports; and in particular what his plans are to avoid waste of this food.

Major Lloyd George: As regards transport charges I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave him on 26th November. I have no reason to suppose that fish landed at Scottish ports is not being disposed of satisfactorily.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the obvious way to solve the problem not by having fish distributed and charged for by weight plus distance, as at present, but by weight only, as letters are carried at present, which makes the Post Office such a profitable concern?

Major Lloyd George: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the White Fish Authority has been considering this question, and as I said on 26th November, as soon as we hear from them it will be for the Ministry to decide what to do.

Hotels and Boarding Houses (Christmas Supplies)

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Food what special Regulations he is making with regard to the allocations of food to hotels and boarding houses during the Christmas holiday.

Major Lloyd George: None, Sir.

Mr. Bence: Is the Minister aware that if no regulation is provided that supplies of poultry and food to hotels should be restricted, housewives of this country will

be very disappointed, in view of the pledges given by the party opposite during the Election that there would be supplies of red meat?

Major Lloyd George: In the first place I would not describe poultry as red meat. The only thing that happened last year was an Order restricting, I think, turkeys for one day during the Christmas period, and that has not been a very satisfactory scheme to carry out.

Hog Casings

Mr. S. Storey: asked the Minister of Food if he will state the quantity and value of hog casings imported from the United States of America during this year.

Major Lloyd George: 19,813 cwt. valued at £914,845 were imported from the United States during the first 10 months of this year.

Mr. Storey: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is a manufacturer in my constituency who is unable to sell hog casings because of these imports, and that his firm are not allowed to export to other countries?

Major Lloyd George: Without these imports we would be seriously short, because the home supplies would be nothing like sufficient.

Mr. Storey: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that his Department refuses to help my constituent to find an outlet for them in this country, and will he take steps to rectify that position?

Fish Prices

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he will re-introduce price control on fish in view of the continual rise in price of this commodity.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) and Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley), on 12th November. I should add that prices for cod and haddock and similar varieties have in fact fallen during last month.

Tinplate (Canning Industry)

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: asked the Minister of Food what tonnage of tinplate he proposes to allocate to the canning industry in 1952.

Major Lloyd George: I am not yet in a position to give any figure.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the anxiety felt by canners in all parts of the country at the present moment and also of the rumours floating around that there is going to be a heavy reduction, which rumours are worrying them very much? Will he make an announcement at the earliest possible moment which will reassure them?

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that a very large part of the fruit crop in Worcestershire and Hertfordshire was wasted last year as a result of the policy of exporting tinplate instead of giving it to our home growers?

Major Lloyd George: Most of the allocation goes to the food industry, not particularly to the fruit industry. My hon. Friend will be aware, of course, that there has been a supply difficulty for some time.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the necessity, from the growers' point of view, of planning for this coming crop, and for them to know that they will receive a fair share of the canning materials so that they can plan accordingly?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, I will give them information as soon as I can.

Heifer Calves (Slaughtering)

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that top grade suckled calves are being purchased in north of Scotland store sales and taken to the north of England and there graded; and what steps he proposes to take to stop the premature slaughter of calves and heifers.

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that the sale of suckled heifer calves for slaughter has been greater this year than previously. My Department, in conjunction with the Agriculture Departments and the National Farmers' Union, are considering what can be done to encourage the feeding of suitable animals to higher weights.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will the Minister look into the fact—because it is a fact—that these calves are fetching very high prices in Scotland and are being sent south across the Border and there slaughtered?

Major Lloyd George: I will.

Fat Sheep and Lambs (Prices)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food if he will revise the fat stock terms for sheep and lambs by the introduction of a graduated in-wool premium from the beginning of January so as to avoid the shearing of sheep before sale, or alternatively a hold-up of fat sheep until the in-wool premium becomes payable on 18th February.

Major Lloyd George: The prices for fat sheep and lambs including the special temporary premium for sheep in wool for the 12 months ending March next were fixed at the last February review, and I do not think it is necessary to make an adjustment for the first three months of next year. The prices can, of course, be reconsidered at the time of the next review.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is there no chance of making an adjustment from January next, because what is happening is that these sheep are being deprived of their winter coats at this time of the year in order to get the extra price for the wool?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, but this was agreed with the Department of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union. The purchasing officers have the right to penalise people who put sheep in that condition on the market.

Condemned Tinned Foods

Mr. Richard Fort: asked the Minister of Food what total value of canned meat, meat products and fish and fish products bought by his Department for human consumption since 1945 has been released for sale as dog and cat food.

Major Lloyd George: From time to time small quantities of canned meats found to be unfit for human consumption have been sold, under proper safeguards, to manufacturers of cat and dog foods. Separate records of these small sales


have not been maintained. No fish products have been released by my Department for this purpose.

Mr. Fort: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that apparently large quantities of these meat products can be purchased in many parts of England, and can he give any further information about the wastage of previous purchases in this way?

Major Lloyd George: My information is that the quantity is not large, but that it is small. If my hon. Friend has any information on the subject, I will look into it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that many dogs and cats are also rejecting this food?

OFFICIAL CARS

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Prime Minister which Ministers are now entitled to the use of official cars.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): Sir, Ministers assigned police protection will have cars provided for their personal use for all purposes, paying a mileage rate of 1s. 6d. for private journeys. At present these Ministers are my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and myself.
No other Ministers will have cars personally allotted to them. They can draw on a pool of motor cars for official purposes. In the case of Cabinet Ministers and Ministers in charge of Departments, "official purposes" includes journeys to and from their official work within seven miles of the Palace of Westminster.
The use by Ministers, other than the three first mentioned, of official cars for private purposes on repayment will cease altogether.
A pool will be formed for official cars in London whether belonging to the Ministry of Supply pool, to the Service Departments or to other Departments.
Consequential arrangements will be made for the use of cars by Service officers and civil servants in the London area.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Is not it important, in view of recent developments, to include the Minister of Food among those Ministers given police protection?

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Prime Minister when he intends to initiate an all-party conference to consider proposals for reform of the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister: I am not at present in a position to make a statement with regard to the conference to which my hon. Friend refers. It could in any case not be held before some time next year in view of the pressure of urgent business before the Government.

NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL (ROME MEETING)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the conferences and the North Atlantic Council meetings held in Rome; what were the questions considered; upon which was agreement reached; what appointments have been made to command all Western naval forces in the Atlantic, North Sea and the English Channel; and what are the conditions of appointment.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister what conversations the British representatives to the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Rome have had on the formation of a European army; to what extent they have been asked to contribute to that army; and what is the policy of the Government with regard thereto.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: asked the Prime Minister whether he will define the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the creation of a European army.

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Members await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will make later on on the political matters involved, and the statement which I will make in the Defence debate on Thursday.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (STATEMENT)

Mr. Frederick Lee: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies at Singapore on 29th November, that the Government may reconsider the recognition of Communist China, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: No change is at present contemplated in our policy towards China.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on the tape machine on Thursday, there was a report containing a statement that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had said at Singapore that the Conservative Government might review the question of the recognition of Communist China; and that, on the same afternoon, in another place, the Lord Privy Seal stated that Commonwealth unity had, in fact, been broken when the late Government recognised the Chinese Peoples' Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, during his visit to the United States, this is not one of the problems to be discussed?

The Prime Minister: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question seems to be covered by the statement I have made. Certainly, I have no desire to embark upon a discussion of what may or may not be discussed when I visit Washington.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Will the Prime Minister tell his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary that, if he does not stop saying in Malaya that political progress must be put into cold storage, we shall have lost Malaya before he gets back?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that a rather more kindly feeling would have been expressed towards my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, who is undertaking a mission of great difficulty, not unaccompanied by danger.

Mr. Shinwell: Could not the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have conveyed the some sentiments to the House when my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) went to Malaya?

The Prime Minister: I do not remember that any controversy of this character arose on the subject.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the Prime Minister recollect the slanderous attacks made upon my right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I am not so deeply versed in slanderous attacks as the right hon. Gentleman.

DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS (UNITED NATIONS)

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will issue as a White Paper the disarmament proposals presented to the United Nations Assembly by the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, respectively, together with the amendments submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United States proposals.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): The disarmament proposals presented to the General Assembly of the United Nations jointly by His Majesty's Government and the Governments of France and the United States of America have already been presented to Parliament in Command Paper No. 8414. The various proposals of the Soviet Union are being made available to hon. Members in the Library of the House.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, may I also ask him whether, subsequent to the present discussions by the joint committee in Paris, the documents which are produced may also be circulated in a similar way?

Mr. Eden: I will gladly consider that.

FALKLAND ISLANDS DEPENDENCIES

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Argentine Government in defiance of the agreement to abstain from naval demonstrations during the Antarctic summer, proposes to send an air and military expedition to the Falkland Islands; and whether he will lodge a protest.

Mr. Eden: I understand that the Argentine Government propose to send a relief expedition to the Falkland Islands


Dependencies early this month. According to my present information, the number of ships included in this expedition does not contravene the Tripartite Naval Declarations exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of Argentine and Chile.

Mr. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that President Peron, in February of this year, publicly stated that he had refrained from military occupation of the Falkland Islands, because scientific expeditions would, bit by bit, give him possession?

Mr. Eden: I am dealing with the Falkland Islands Dependencies. There is no question of any kind of an expedition to the Falkland Islands of which I am aware. As regards the Dependencies, the arrangement is a complicated one, but, if my hon. Friend would like to see it, I will have its terms circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, so that hon. Members can judge for themselves.

Following is the arrangement:
Being anxious to avoid any misunderstanding in Antarctica which may affect the friendly relations between the United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile, the Governments of these three countries have informed each other that, in present circumstances, they foresee no need to send warships south of latitude 60 degrees during the 1951 to 1952 Antarctic season, apart, of course, from movements such as have been customary for a number of years.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the Governments of Chile and Argentina on their occupation of British territory in the Falkland Islands Dependencies.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government have on a number of occasions protested to the Argentine and Chilean Governments against their unwarranted acts of trespass on British Antarctic territory. The texts of these documents are available in the Library. During the summer of this year, there have been no further acts of trespass warranting representations to these Governments.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, by following the policy of the previous Government in this matter and rejecting the advice vociferously offered to him from his own side of the House for stronger action, he will earn himself widespread public approval?

Mr. Eden: I am very far from expecting anything of the kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

British Middle East Office

Mr. F. J. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the number of officials at present employed by the British Middle East Office in Egypt, together with their salaries, designations and duties.

Mr. Eden: As the reply is somewhat lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Erroll: Will my right hon. Friend take the necessary steps to shorten the length of that reply in future?

Mr. Eden: I do not think my hon. Friend should make these comments until he has read the answer.

Mr. H. Hynd: Could the Foreign Secretary indicate briefly whether the answer is "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Eden: How could it be "Yes" or "No"? The answer has to say how many officials there are, and it would not be either "Yes" or "No"; it would be a number.

Following is the reply:

The number of officials at the British Middle East Office in Cairo for which the Foreign Office is responsible is 15 and in addition there are 69 clerical and subordinate staff.

The salaries of the officials are:
Head of Office: Salary £2,850 a year.

Political Division:

One Counsellor on a salary of £1,500 to £2,000 a year.

Three First Secretaries with salaries of £1,000 to £1,375 a year.

Development Division:

Head of Division on a salary of £1,700 a year.

Seven Senior Technical Advisers with salaries of £1,200 to £1,700 a year.

Two Junior Technical Advisers with salaries of £1,000 to £1,375 a year.

The principal duties of these officers are to report on political, economic, financial and social questions affecting more than one territory in the Middle East; to co-ordinate policy with all British authorities in the area; to maintain such contact as necessary with the Arab League; and through the Experts of the Development Division to give technical advice on request to Middle East Governments on economic and social developments.

Total cost on Foreign Office vote including contribution to Military Division is £129,000.

Egyptian Armed Forces (U.K. Training)

Mr. I. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of the Egyptian armed forces are at present under training or instruction in Great Britain.

Mr. Eden: The figures are, at the moment:

Navy: 6 officers, 12 ratings.
Army: 11 officers, no other ranks.
Air Force: 14 officers, 8 non-commissioned officers.

Mr. Mikardo: Why are we continuing to give this assistance to the Egyptian Government, which is so openly and flagrantly defying us and our interests? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in the last Parliament, he himself warmly, though rather belatedly, supported my protest at this action, and will he not now practise a little of what he preached when he was in Opposition?

Mr. Eden: I have no recollection of entering into this question in any speech of mine, but, in point of fact, it is under consideration. There are other matters to be borne in mind, amongst which is the position that exists at the present time, in which the Egyptian Army—curiously enough, as hon. Members may think—is amongst the most friendly elements of the population in Egypt. I have to bear all these elements in mind.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: Would my right hon. Friend consider, with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, the whole policy of training foreign officers at our Staff and other establishments, in view of the fact that it provides very easy access for these officers to information which it is not always desirable they should possess?

Mr. Eden: That is a wider question, but I would say to my hon. Friend that, very often, we get a pretty good return from these contacts.

U.S.S.R. (BRITISH REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Linstead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic or consular missions now exist in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics outside Moscow; and what facilities for diplomatic help are available for British vessels in Russian ports.

Mr. Eden: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to United Kingdom representation, which is confined to His Majesty's Embassy at Moscow. There is no British Consulate in other Soviet towns. There are, therefore, no facilities for providing local assistance to British vessels in Soviet ports. His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow do, of course, take up with the Soviet authorities any cases affecting such vessels which arise.

Mr. Linstead: Are we to understand from that reply that there are no other friendly diplomatic missions available in Russia to take charge of the interests of British subjects?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I would be willing to arrange matters in this way without much more consideration. I think we have to look after our own subjects in all countries with which we have diplomatic relations. There are no Soviet Consular representatives in this country, and we have none in Russia. That, I think, is a pity, but I do not think it is entirely our fault.

INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S FUND

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has not been provided by its constituent member States with enough funds to enable it to carry out the programme already approved: and whether he will make a substantial payment to the fund to enable the good work to continue and encourage other nations to do the same.

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has not been provided by its constituent member States with enough funds to enable it to carry out the programme approved by the member States themselves; and whether he will make a further substantial contribution to the fund.

Mr. Eden: I am informed that the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund will have enough money to cover all the projects recommended by the Administration for 1952.
The answer to the second parts of the Questions is that His Majesty's Government have already contributed £100,000 to this organisation in 1951 and are considering a further contribution.

HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING

Rev. Llywelyn Williams: asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, on whose authority is a table reserved for certain hon. Members in the Members' Dining Room.

Mr. John Parker: asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, when and by whom permission was given for seats to be reserved in the Members' Dining Room.

Mr. William A. Steward (Chairman of the Kitchen Committee): By custom and with the sanction of the Kitchen Committee, tables in the Members' Dining Room have always been reserved for certain purposes. There are tables for Members of the Government Front Bench, Members of the Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal Party, and so on. I presume that this Question refers specifically to the small table in the southwest corner in which by custom and with the sanction of the Kitchen Committee the Government Chief Whip has had at least since 1921 a special interest. The holder of this office is, of course, perpetually in the House, has to have meals at uncertain hours, and may wish to take the opportunity for private conversations. However, after the Election in 1945 the then Government Chief Whip did not use this table and the custom lapsed. While the present Government Chief Whip would find it a convenience if the custom could continue, he has made it quite clear to me, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, that he will not entertain the idea if, under present conditions, it causes inconvenience to other hon. Members. He will, therefore, abide by the decision of the Kitchen Committee, which has just been set up and to which this question will be referred.

Rev. LI. Williams: Is the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee aware that one of the most pathetic sights these days in the Palace of Westminster is to see a

number of Conservative Members gazing despairingly at that empty table and looking with envy at those fortunate Members who are sitting at tables wolfishly devouring huge chunks of red meat? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the reservation of this table is typical of the Conservative outlook and completely at variance with the outlook of the present Opposition.

Mr. Parker: Is there not much to be said for the Chief Whip eating and talking with other people who are not Whips?

ROADS, LONDON (WOOD-PAVING)

Mr. Ronald Russell: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects that all wood-paving will be removed from the roads of central London and replaced by a less slippery surface.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): Highway authorities are replacing wood-paving with non-skid material as and when resurfacing is necessary. I cannot say how long this will take.

Mr. Mikardo: Can the right hon. Gentleman get the appropriate authority to have a particular look at Lisson Grove, Marylebone, which is increasingly being used as a motor road as an alternative to the Edgware Road, and which in wet weather is literally a death trap?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member's supplementary will be duly noted.

TRANSPORT FACILITIES, MIDLANDS

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will appoint a working party to investigate and report on the transport problems and needs of the area within a 50-mile radius of Manchester, the report to be prepared like the London Working Party Report to him;
(2) if he will have an investigation made into the transport needs of North Stafford. shire and the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and if he will give special attention to the need for increased transport facilities for people engaged in the mining and pottery industries.

Mr. Maclay: In view of the general duty laid on the British Transport Com-


mission by the Transport Act, 1947, to see that adequate and efficient transport facilities are provided throughout the country, it is, at any rate at present, for them to consider whether the appointment of special committees of investigation is necessary.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Seeing that this matter is one aspect of production and that before the war most of the large-scale capital expenditure was in the South of England, has not the time arrived when the Minister should take the initiative so that industry can be run as efficiently as possible, which includes the efficient transportation of the workers?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will no doubt recollect that as long ago as 15th December, 1947, he had a similar question down to my predecessor whose reply at that time stated:
It will be the duty of the British Transport Commission to see that transport facilities in the country as a whole are adequate and sufficient."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 286.]
I think the hon. Member is now coming well towards our side in holding the view that something further might be done.

Mr. Erroll: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the inadequacy of the roads in this particular area?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, we will look at that supplementary also.

FIRE SERVICE DISPUTE (DISCIPLINARY ACTION)

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to avoid discrepancies in the punishments awarded by local fire authorities to firemen who committed breaches of discipline by refusing to obey lawful orders during the so-called demonstration on 19th and 20th November, he proposes to issue any advice to the authorities.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I have no power to intervene except in the exercise of my appellate jurisdiction. Each case must be considered and dealt with on its individual merits by the disciplinary authorities. I am not in possession of complete information,

but I understand that some authorities have dealt with cases by reprimand or caution while in a few cases it has been thought necessary to impose more severe penaties.
I have no doubt that disciplinary authorities will exercise a wise discretion in the light of all the circumstances, including the need, which I have stressed several times in the House, of avoiding any action which would exacerbate existing differences which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service has been endeavouring to resolve. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who is in agreement with what I have said.

Mr. H. Hynd: While appreciating the difficulty about giving instructions to local authorities, and in view of the fact that the Home Secretary did issue a piece of advice, in general terms, at the beginning of this dispute as to how the local authorities should avoid unnecessary action by the police, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would contemplate issuing a similar notice in general terms on this particular point?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that the House will appreciate the difficulty of my position. If punishments are imposed of reduction by two ranks or of a more serious kind an appeal lies to me and it would be intolerable, and contrary to the view of any Home Secretary of any party, that that appellate task should be prejudiced by specific statements. I hope that the spirit of what I have said will be appreciated not only in the House but beyond.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the Home Secretary, with his good sense, make an appeal to firemen all over the country, in these difficult days, to clear out evil influences and, if possible, avoid disciplinary action at all?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that all quarters of the House will appreciate that my appeal has been, from the beginning of this unfortunate difference, that everyone should try and restrain himself from saying or doing anything which will exacerbate existing differences.

Mr. Mikardo: While appreciating what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the difficulty of his position, may I ask whether he could not at least make a point of circulating to


the local authorities the terms of the very statesmanlike statement he has made this afternoon in reply to the original Question?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that everyone concerned will see that statement and will also get what, if I may say so, I consider of great importance—the almost complete unanimity of feeling in the House—which I am sure they will pick up and understand.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Stephen Swingier: On a point of order. May I ask permission, Sir, to put a question on business to the Leader of the House? May I draw his attention to the fact that there are 155 Questions on the Order Paper for tomorrow and a very large number for the rest of the week? In view of the long Christmas Recess will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving more time for Questions, if necessary, this week?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The time allotted to Questions is settled by Standing Orders and is not a thing with which I can interfere.

NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL (ROME MEETING)

Mr. Eden: With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
The House may like to have an account of the Rome meetings in which I have just taken part. I shall deal today only with the political aspects. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will speak of the defence aspects in the debate on Thursday.
The North Atlantic Council, at their meeting in Ottawa in September, decided to hold more frequent meetings, to exchange views and to develop more effective unity of action. The meeting which I have just attended in Rome was the first of these regular meetings. Coming, as it did, barely two months after the previous meeting it was inevitably, as I myself described it, an intermediate meeting. It did, however, enable Ministers to take stock of the progress made over the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's wide field of

activities, and to discuss, inside and outside the Council, the many difficult problems with which we are faced.
It was very fitting that the Council should meet at this time in Italy, a country which has so clearly demonstrated its firm adherence to our common ideals. I was very glad to have the opportunity to meet again and talk with Signor de Gasperi, the Italian Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, and also to have personal discussions with several of the other Foreign Ministers present. The Council received reports from its agencies and special committees, both military and civil, on the progress of their work. Many of these were of a routine character, and I will not take up the time of the House in describing them.
Perhaps the most difficult problem which now faces the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is to reconcile the defence requirements of the North Atlantic area with the political and economic capabilities of the countries concerned. The re-armament programme must be so devised as not to imperil our standard of life or democratic freedom.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Impossible.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member is entitled to his view. So are 22 nations to theirs. The Temporary Council Committee is at present engaged on this difficult task. The Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Harriman, informed the Council of the progress of the Committee's work to date. He explained that the Committee's final report and recommendations would be presented early in December for the consideration of member Governments. The Council will take decisions upon this report at its next session. The Council also had before it a report on the readiness and effectiveness of North Atlantic Treaty Forces, and heard a statement by General Eisenhower.
The other main subject before the Council was Germany. Before the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Rome Mr. Acheson, M. Schuman and I had a useful and successful meeting in Paris with Dr. Adenauer, the Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the German Federal Republic. Besides reviewing problems of common concern to our four Governments, we were able to give provisional approval to the draft of a General


Agreement to be concluded between us to establish the main principles of our future relationship.
This Agreement will enter into force when a number of other related conventions covering detailed matters arising out of the proposed new relationship with Germany are concluded, together with a proposed treaty to establish a European Defence Community. The Ministers agreed that discussions should continue in Germany between the High Commissioners and the Federal Government on these related conventions so that they can be completed as rapidly as possible.
At the meeting with Dr. Adenauer we all agreed that an essential aim of the common policy of the four Governments was a freely negotiated peace settlement for the whole of Germany. We further agreed that the final determination of the boundaries of Germany must await such a settlement. It will be agreed that these proposed arrangements establishing a new relationship with Germany are essential steps to the achievement of our common aim, a unified Germany integrated within the European community.
When we met in Rome the North Atlantic Council was given an account of these discussions with Dr. Adenauer, and of the present position of negotiations to establish a new relationship with the German Federal Republic.
The Council also received from the French Foreign Minister a report on the state of negotiations in Paris for the establishment of a European defence community. The Paris Conference has not completed its report, and the subject was accordingly not discussed in substance by the Council, which confined itself to adopting a resolution expressing the hope that the Paris Conference would conclude its activities at the earliest possible moment so that its final report could be considered by the Council at its next meeting.
That meeting will take place in Lisbon early in February. We are grateful to the Portuguese Government for their generous offer of hospitality which makes this arrangement possible.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: We are, of course, obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the statement that he has made, and we are glad that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is, in accordance with

our own wishes, which we expressed at Ottawa, meeting somewhat more frequently. The statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, as he will recognise, is on every point, or nearly every point, inconclusive so far. It is essentially an interim report in which no final conclusions are indicated. I hope we can take it that as soon as any final conclusions of a decisive character are reached the right hon. Gentleman will report to the House, because it might be necessary for a discussion to take place about them.

Mr. Eden: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is no fault of ours or of the other nations concerned that this was an interim meeting. It had to be in view of the nearness of the date to the meeting at Ottawa. but, it having been arranged and particularly having been arranged at Rome, with the approval and support of the Italian Government, we certainly thought it should take place despite the fact that we knew before we went there that no final decisions on these topics were possible.

Mr. E. Shinwell: May I clear up a possible misunderstanding? Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this was regarded as an interim meeting and, therefore, inconclusive—I am not complaining about the political aspects—on the defence aspects? My understanding was that it was to be conclusive on some points relating to defence aspects.

Mr. Eden: I called it an intermediate meeting. None of the topics were sufficiently advanced, including the defence topics, to make a decision final. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Paris discussions are still going on, so it could not be a final meeting on that score.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: On the economic aspect, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he discussed the question of a common pool of Atlantic resources in order to avoid the recurring necessity for Europe and this country to go begging, cap in hand, to America?

Mr. Eden: That is exactly one of the topics on which the T.C.C.—I must get these terrible committees' names right; the Temporary Council Committee or, at any rate, the organisation over which Mr. Harriman presides and on which Sir


Edwin Plowden sits—are engaged. They could not report finally to us in Rome, but they are going finally to do so in Lisbon.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask whether, in the discussions at Rome, the right hon. Gentleman repeated the same views that he expressed in the House of Commons last February on the subject of British participation within a European Army, or whether he said the exact opposite, and what was the effect on these European countries of the departure by the right hon. Gentleman from the policy which he expressed then about a European Army?

Mr. Eden: I expressed no view at all about a European Army at the Conference because the matter never came up at the Conference at all.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: May I ask two questions on the economic side? First of all, was there a report on the Finance and Economic Board of N.A.T.O. of what is commonly called the burden-sharing exercise—that is to say, the distribution of the burden of defence—and second, did Mr. Harriman, in reporting to the Council, give any indication of the preliminary conclusions of the Temporary Committee?

Mr. Eden: Mr. Harriman did not and, if I may say so, I think he was right not to do so, in view of the stage which his work had reached. It is because we cannot have that report that we have to wait for the Lisbon meeting.

Mr. Gaitskell: What about the Finance and Economic Board?

Mr. Eden: No

Mr. Gaitskell: There was no report on the economic side?

Mr. Eden: No; I think I am right. It is rather out of my province.

Mr. Frederick Lee: In order to keep the Foreign Secretary out of trouble with his colleagues, may I ask him to make it clear that when he referred to "these terrible committees" he meant the names of the committees and not the personnel?

Mr. Eden: I meant the names of the committees.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did the Foreign Secretary impress upon this Conference that the gigantic burden of armaments throughout Western Europe is now lowering the standard of life of every country in Europe, with the result that there is a growing tendency in these countries to become Communist? Further, has he impressed upon the Conference that what we want is a constructive programme for the reconstruction of Europe and not for more armaments?

Mr. Eden: I did not think that it was necessary for me to use any words to explain to the nations assembled the problem that re-armament is for them. I think they were also conscious of the need for some defence in view of the present international situation.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I presume that those of us who had Questions down on this subject are entitled to put supplementaries. May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether a report was presented to the Conference stating that no warlike moves were imminent in Europe, and if so, whether we are justified in going on with this large-scale expenditure on armaments in relation to our national income if such a report was presented? May I also ask whether a report was presented dealing with the appointment of naval commanders over the Forces in the Atlantic, the English Channel and the Mediterranean, and, if so, what attitude did we take?

Mr. Eden: In answer to the latter point, no decision was taken. As to the former point, I know that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say more than the actual documents of the Conference contain. It would not do if I, apart from the 11 other Foreign Secretaries and 22 other Ministers, were to give my interpretation of what was said as regards the military prospects.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES) BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill now standing committed to a Standing Committee be committed to a Committee of the whole House and that this House will after the Order of the Day relating to Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) [Money] has been disposed of, resolve itself into the said Cornmittee.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Bing: If I may respectfully say so, Mr. Speaker, this is a debateable Motion. I was rising to speak very briefly on it, since the Leader of the House has not seen fit to explain the need for it. I thought I might make a few apologies to the House on his behalf.
This is a quite unprecedented Motion. On Thursday, at half-past three, the right hon. Gentleman himself rose in his place and said that we should discuss this matter in Committee of the whole House today. At seven o'clock, the Patronage Secretary saw fit to go through those motions which resulted in the matter being sent to a Standing Committee. Which of those two decisions are we to accept? Are we not to have some explanation to show which was right? Did the Patronage Secretary make a mistake or did the right hon. Gentleman make a mistake?
Was it owing to the absence, in another place, of the co-ordinating Minister that no decision could be made? I can understand that as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's long absence from office these mistakes might be made, and I think we on this side of the House would be wrong to be hard on him for that. But there are many other hon. Gentlemen who can read. When they read in HANSARD that the Bill had been committed to a Committee of the whole House, why was not a statement made on Friday?
It is a matter in which the House as a whole should protect the Chairman of Committees from any inconvenience from the discourtesy of the course which has been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. I have been approached by a number of my hon. Friends who wished to put down Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty they were in. They had to wait until the Standing Committee had been appointed, to see whether they were members, before they could put their Amendments on the Paper; and when it was too late for them to put any Amendments down at all, they found this Motion on the Paper, which the right hon.

Gentleman hopes he will carry through on the nod without a word of apology to the House or anything else.
I shall advise those of my hon. Friends who have Amendments not to put them forward. In present circumstances, I do not think it is fair on the Chairman of Committees, because this is a Bill which is done by reference, and it is impossible to discuss a manuscript Amendment referring back to other statutes in these circumstances. I hope that the Leader of the House will support me here, that we should not proceed to discuss the Bill at all unless we get the agreement of both sides of the House that there will be no manuscript Amendments, because, after this Motion is carried, in my submission the Chairman of Committees will have no option but to accept them in circumstances in which Amendments could not otherwise have been put down.
Unless we get the agreement of both sides not to put down manuscript Amendments, I do not think we should proceed with the Bill. I would say this to the right hon. Gentleman: I hope that the House will carry his Motion, but I think this is an occasion upon which we might make this plea—that we should have a little more co-operation from the Leader of the House in seeing that the House is treated fairly and has an opportunity to have first business first.
I am not trying to make any bargain with the right hon. Gentleman. All I am asking is whether, if the House passes this Motion, he will not reconsider the business. He might even report somewhere else and alter some of the other items. To take an example, we did not have a debate on African federation because the right hon. Gentleman thought it was impossible that the Consolidated Fund Bill could take any time. He was entirely wrong about that. I want to ask him whether, if we pass this Motion, there will be any Ministers in attendance in the House to deal with it. As he knows perfectly well, although he was given notice on Friday that the Consolidated Fund Bill would be debated all day, he had no senior Minister present on the Front Bench at all. We ought at least to be told by him, if we pass this Motion, that we shall not have hon. Members opposite bringing out the excuse that because the Chief Whip had


put the Bill down for a Standing Committee they were not in attendance. Let us, first of all, have an assurance—

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: I was in the House on Friday and my recollection is that the Home Secretary was on the Front Bench almost the whole time.

Mr. Bing: I was glad to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman and surprised, in those circumstances, that he was not able to answer any of the points raised—but perhaps he is not one of the co-ordinating Ministers.
We can understand the difficulty of the Leader of the House. He has to get the House up before alterations are made in the Control of Engagements Order. We all know the orders he has received, and we are trying to help him to get the business done. I am appealing to my hon. Friends to see that this Motion goes through. But if we agree to do that, he, on his side, should make it perfectly clear to us that Ministers will be in attendance, and should say who made the mistake. Let us be clear who was responsible for the mistake, let us be told who did not apologise and explain to the House on Friday, who was responsible for not letting the House know in time to put down Amendments. Let us have that clear. When we have it clear, let us try to approach this in a new spirit. I say that in all sincerity.
It is quite impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to dictate to the House what it will discuss. All he can do is to see that we discuss rather less important instead of rather more important matters. Perhaps I can give this example. It would have been far better for him to have given way to the Leader of the Opposition and to have allowed the debate on West African affairs during the time we took upon the Consolidated Fund Bill instead of saying, quite wrongly, that there could be no debate upon it—and then allowing another debate to take place.
The right hon. Gentleman should take this opportunity, first of all, of making apologies to the House; and secondly, of responding to the appeal that we should all get together and try to arrange the business a bit better than it is being arranged at present.

3.55 p.m.

The Minister of Heath (Mr. Harry Crookshank): It is a rather novel proposition that we should all get together, because normal practice is that we get together through the usual channels, with the official spokesman for the official Opposition. I thought this Motion was self-explanatory. When I announced business last week I said that this stage of the Bill could be taken as the first item, but by sheer inadvertence the Motion to commit it to the whole House was not moved. It therefore automatically went to Standing Committee, and it was to carry out the original intention that I put this Motion on the Order Paper—so that we could do what we said we intended to do and what was agreed that we should do, carry on with it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Not very bright.

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman says that it was not very bright. It was sheer inadvertence and I am very sorry that it has occurred. But it has happened before; indeed, it happened twice during the life-time of the last Government, when the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), was himself leading the House. We then absolved him from the consequences of his inadvertence, and I hope the same may be done today.

Mr. Hector Hughes: But it has misled the House.

Mr. Crookshank: It was not more misleading to the House, in this case, than it was in the two cases involving the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South. I would add this: the hon. and learned Gentleman makes great play of Friday's debate, but it is a fact that not only was my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary here but also the Secretary of State for Scotland—both Cabinet Ministers. His complaint on the ground of there being no senior Minister present was, therefore, unfounded. I hope the House will now allow us to have this Motion so that we can carry on with the business which we hope to see done.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I can only say that we note the defence of the right hon. Gentleman. We had better let the matter go. but I am bound to say that this is an


extraordinary Government, whose defence seems to be either that they did not know before they got into office or, now, that if they make a mistake, somebody also made a similar mistake before. It is a poor defence for a Government which claims to be perfect, but the more we see of the Government the more we know that it is not perfect.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: The explanation given by the Leader of the House seems to be utterly inadequate. It may be that former Governments have made similar mistakes, but what we are considering is whether this Government have taken adequate steps to try to put the mistake right. The point which seemed to be most important, among those made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), was this: this mistake was made on Thursday. By simply putting this Motion down today the Government have made it quite impossible for anybody to put down an Amendment.
Why was not the House informed of this mistake on Friday? It would have been quite possible then for the Leader of the House to have come here, not in this jaunty manner, but to have made a proper apology to the House for having made a mess of its business by his mistake, and for other Members to have had now the opportunity to put down Amendments, and to have known where to put them down. Instead of that the Government apparently wish to make a profit by their mistake by not getting this business but, at the same time, preventing Members of the Opposition from putting down any Amendments today.
After all, it is not as though the House seemed to consider, on Second Reading, that this was a very satisfactory Bill, or a Bill of such perfection that it pleased everybody. It was a Bill on which, I should have thought, one would have expected Amendments. Now we are being

asked to deal with it without any opportunity of putting them down. Before my hon. Friends allow the Government to get the Motion we want to have an explanation from the Government as to how Amendments are to be dealt with.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Leader of the House tell us whether it is due to sheer inadvertence that a gross injustice has been done to Scottish Members in framing this Bill and presenting it to the House in this way? There is a subsection which deals particularly with Scotland, and deals with the appointment of three Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland. In the debate on that it would be quite competent to discuss questions affecting Scotland ranging from John o'Groats to Dumfries.
I suggest that the Clause applying to Scotland should be referred to the place it should, and that is, the Scottish Grand Committee; and I appeal to the Leader of the House, in view of the assurances which have been made that the Government intend to give fuller opportunity for the discussion of Scottish questions, to see that this question of the Scottish Under-Secretaries is sent to the Scottish Grand Committee. We do not want to waste the time of English Members discussing purely Scottish matters, and I suggest that the Scottish Members should receive the support of English Members in asking that this purely Scottish business should be remitted to the Scottish Grand Committee, where it rightfully belongs.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Bill now standing committed to a Standing Committee be committed to a Committee of the whole House and that this House will after the Order of the Day relating to Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) [Money] has been disposed of, resolve itself into the said Committee.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend certain provisions of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, relating to Parliamentary Under-Secretaries, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of annual salaries not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds each to any additional Parliamentary Under-Secretaries to whom salaries are authorised to be paid by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(NUMBERS OF PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.3 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: This Clause makes quite a change from what we have hitherto had at the Scottish Office, and there are certain aspects of it that Scottish Members, I am certain, are very desirous of having further enlightenment upon. I therefore want to ask you, Sir Charles, for guidance. I take it that we can ask what the duties are of these Under-Secretaries, and how they will fit into the various Departments in the Scottish Office, and that I should not be out of order in going into inquiry about the various duties of the Under-Secretaries.

The Chairman: I do not think we can Debate on the Question that the Clause stand part is like that on Third Reading. We can discuss only what is in the Clause. I do not think that the question can be made any wider.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Further to that point, Sir Charles. We are in this difficulty because of the Motion just carried in the House remitting this matter to a Committee of the whole House, which was previously re-

mitted by the House to a Standing Committee. Hon. Members could not put down any Amendments because the Standing Committee was not appointed and they did not know whether they would be members of it. It was only at that moment, three or four minutes ago, when the Bill was committed to a Committee of the whole House that hon. Members knew what the position was to be. In the circumstances no one could put down an Amendment on the Order Paper to deal with these various problems.
The Leader of the House having got us into this unfortunate difficulty, we hope that on Committee stage he will at least repair some of the damage he has done by joining with me in making an appeal to allow the matter to go wide enough for discussion upon various points hon. Members would have discussed if he had allowed the normal procedure.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. Anybody can put down Amendments on Committee stage whether he is a member of the Committee or not. Amendments can be put down by any Member of the House.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that. The difficulty, I think, that hon. Members on this side of the Committee felt was that it was inconvenient to the Chairman of Committees—indeed, very discourteous—if Amendments were put down in the name of hon. Members who were not to be members of the Committee.

The Chairman: In a long experience of Standing Committees I found no difficulty on that point.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) asked whether we should be in order in discussing the functions of the Under-Secretaries who are provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill. You have ruled, Sir Charles, that we may not discuss the duties of the Under-Secretaries.
When the difficulty mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) arose some of my hon. Friends told me that it was their desire to put Amendments on the Notice Paper for the Standing Committee, so that they might get some further elucidation of the duties of the additional Under-Secretary. Indeed, they called my atten-


tion to the fact that one could have a rather wider debate, to deal with particular aspects, by putting down Amendments covering them.
Now we find that in debate on the Motion that the Clause stand part we can discuss only what is contained in the Clause. I said to my hon. Friends, when they pointed these things out to me, that I was sure that, since this Clause provided for the appointment of three Under-Secretaries for Scotland, the Chair would enable hon. Members to discuss the duties of those persons to be here appointed, for how otherwise could the Committee decide whether or not it would be a good thing to appoint them? I submit to you, Sir Charles, that it would be in order for hon. Members to discuss the duties of the Under-Secretaries to be here appointed.

The Chairman: I do not think it would. No manuscript Amendments have been handed in. I heard someone suggest that the parties might agree about the handing in of manuscript Amendments. Their selection would be my responsibility. Probably I should have called them. However, none has been handed in, and I do not see bow we can go beyond the Question that the Clause stand part.

Mr. Fraser: In view of the difficulty in which the Government have put us, and quite irrespective of the manuscript Amendments, may I submit, Sir Charles, for your consideration, that it would be competent for this Committee to discuss what it is that these Under-Secretaries are to do after they have been appointed?

The Chairman: It is not within my power to allow it. It is perfectly clear that on the Motion that the Clause stand part the debate must be confined to the Clause. I cannot allow the debate to go beyond the Clause. I am only carrying out the rules. It has nothing to do with me personally.

Mr. John Wheatley: Further to your Ruling, Sir Charles, in which you have, if I may respectfully say so, properly defined the powers and limitations of a Clause stand part debate, the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is that, in the Clause as it stands, provision is made for the appointment of three Under-Secretaries to the Scottish Office,

and that what the Committee has to decide is whether it is justified in making that alteration to the existing law, which provides at the present time for only two Under-Secretaries at the Scottish Office.
To enable the Committee properly to decide whether this change is desirable or necessary it ought to know what the functions of the three Under-Secretaries are, as compared with the functions of the former two Under-Secretaries. We cannot come to a decision—or we may not be able to come to a decision—until we get further information about the duties and functions of the three as distinct from the two Under-Secretaries.
Therefore, within the ambit of the Ruling which you have given, I would respectfully submit that it would be quite competent for us to discuss what the proposed changes are, so that we could decide whether or not the changes are justifiable in the circumstances, without in any way transgressing the Ruling with regard to the debate on Clause stand part.

The Chairman: I think that the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct with reference to Second Reading, but I think that on Third Reading and on the Motion that the Clause stand part the debate is very much narrower.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Is not the Ruling which you have given, Sir Charles, taken from Erskine May, and based on previous Rulings of Speakers and Chairmen in relation to ordinary circumstances? I submit that these are not ordinary circumstances at all, and I suggest that you have discretion, if the Committee wishes to go a little further than that Ruling permits, to allow it to do so, since the Ruling arises from various Editors of Erskine May.

The Chairman: I am guided by Erskine May, and the practice of the House. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Bowles: With great respect, Sir Charles, I am quite certain that many hon. Members can point to many contradictions in Erskine May.

The Chairman: Perhaps they can. If anyone can find a contradiction of the Ruling I have just given I shall be glad to see it.

Mr. William Ross: Does your Ruling, Sir Charles, mean that we on these benches cannot ask the Government to justify this proposal? After all, the Government are asking us to pass this Clause and the Bill. Surely they have to justify to the country the need for an extra Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "They have."]—and allow discussion on it. In my view the change ought to be justified. Surely we should be allowed to discuss the appointment of the three Under-Secretaries. Is there anything at all we can discuss.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman can discuss anything in the Clause.

Mr. Ross: The Clause concerns the appointment of an extra Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Surely that is all my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) asked—that we should discuss that point?

The Chairman: That would be in order.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. I understand that the point which we are considering is whether we are entitled to discuss what is in the Clause or something outside the Clause. With great respect, Sir Charles, I venture to agree with you when you say that we are bound to confine our discussion to the words in the Clause only; but surely it is within the Clause to discuss the duties of the Under-Secretaries of State whom it is proposed to appoint.
We are asked to approve of the appointment of Under-Secretaries of State and of a Bill which will provide for the appointment of Under-Secretaries of State. Are these Under-Secretaries of State to have any duties or no duties? If they are to have any duties, surely it is right to ask what these duties are and to discuss them. If they are to have no duties, surely we are entitled to be told so.

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to deal with one point at a time. The first point he mentioned was whether the duties of the Under-Secretaries referred to in the Clause could be discussed. If they are not mentioned in the Clause they cannot be discussed.

Mr. Hughes: The second point which I want to make with regard to the point of order is this: You have ruled, Sir Charles, that we are not entitled to discuss anything which is not in the Clause. The point which I wish to make is that your Ruling, in my respectful submission, should be interpreted very widely in the very peculiar and abnormal circumstances in which we are placed. Yesterday, the House resolved that this Bill be submitted to a Committee upstairs. Today, we are asked to discuss it in Committee of the whole House, without the intervention of time to permit Amendments being put foward. That is an abnormal situation which calls, I think, for a generous and liberal interpretation of the Ruling that you have given. On these two grounds, I submit that we are entitled to discuss the duties. My first point is that the duties are a fundamental element of the question of whether the Under-Secretaries of State should be appointed or not, and, second, that we are discussing this in abnormal, unusual circumstances, and, therefore, any Ruling that you make should be interpreted widely, so that we can discuss the duties.

The Chairman: My original Ruling was correct, but perhaps if we start the debate I may be guided by what is said.

Mr. T. Fraser: There is one point which I would like to put, Sir Charles, before we start. Subsection (1) of this Clause reads as follows:
For subsection (2) of section two of the Ministers of the Crown Act. 1937 (which specifies the numbers of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries within the meaning of that Act to whom salaries may he paid thereunder) there shall be substituted the following subsection:
(2) The number of Parliamentary Under-Secretaries to whom salaries may he paid under this Act in the case of any Department of State shall not exceed—
(a) in the case of the Treasury and the Scottish Office, three of each;…
I submit that the duties of the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries are, in fact, referred to by the specification of the Department to which they will be attached, and all that my hon. Friends are asking is that they should be allowed to discuss in a little more detail what is in the Clause. We know to which Departments the Under-Secretaries are to be attached. That suggests the type of duties which they are to perform, and perhaps


we may be allowed to look in a little greater detail into what these Under-Secretaries are to do.

The Chairman: I am not going back on my Ruling, but as I have said, I will see how the debate goes.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that I shall not wander too far from the recognised channels of debate on this issue, Sir Charles. I am interested in what is to be the desire of the Scottish Office. I understood from the Secretary of State on previous occasions when we debated this particular issue that certain duties were to be undertaken by the three Under-Secretaries to be appointed. I understood also that the Minister of State for Scottish Affairs was to be responsible for education. I agree completely that education must have a predominant place in the Scottish set-up and in the responsibility of the Scottish Office.
The difficulty in which we are placed is owing to the inadvertence of the Leader of the House in having this matter referred to a Committee upstairs and then coming before the House today and asking for it to be taken on the Floor of the House. There has been no opportunity to put down any Amendment which would put our point of view concerning the particular duties of any of these three Under-Secretaries.
I should like to see devolving on one of the three Under-Secretaries particular responsibility for housing, because I feel that in Scotland this is the predominant social sore of our time. We are to have certain changes. Whether those changes are big enough is another question. I do not think that they are. We are to have a change in the Scottish Office by the appointment of three Under-Secretaries instead of two. I have been interested in housing throughout the whole of my public life, and we on this side are particularly interested in housing.
With regard to the appointment of the three Under-Secretaries instead of the two which we have hitherto had, would the Secretary of State agree with our request that he should look again at the duties of each of the three Under-Secretaries and consider reporting to us whether or not he can give one of the Under-Secretaries a full-time appointment on the question of housing in Scotland? In my consti-

tuency and, no doubt, in other constituencies in Scotland, Members of Parliament have terrific problems to consider in connection with the social conditions which many of our people are experiencing because of the lack of homes.
In my particular constituency there are many miners' homes which are so old that they are rapidly falling into decay, and in some respects no one is really responsible for them. As a result, these old properties are falling into disrepair, roofs are leaking, children are tubercular and suffering from rheumatic conditions and hospital space is being used up. This is something for which we have to be responsible. Every Scottish Member on both sides of the committee is aware of these conditions which are arising in Scotland. We have also big headaches with regard to two other facets of housing. Thousands of families in Scotland are living in sub-let dwellings, where life is becoming intolerable for them, and there is gross overcrowding.
Having regard to this and to the worsening housing condition throughout Scotland, will the Secretary of State consider looking again—I do not want to press him too much—at the duties of the three Under-Secretaries, and put the complete bias for housing either on the Minister of State or one of the Under-Secretaries as a full-time job with no other Departmental commitments. If he would agree to do that, I feel that it might help to rid Scotland of some of the social ills arising from the housing position today.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: I think that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is labouring under a misaprehension. Everyone knows perfectly well that one of the Under-Secretaries will have the job of looking after housing—

Mr. Manuel: Completely?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: —and we all know what a job that is after six years of Socialist rule.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not misrepresent me. I know that one of the Under-Secretaries to be appointed will have responsibility for housing. What I am asking is whether he will have the complete responsibility and nothing less.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. If the hon. Member wishes to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) no doubt he will give way.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to misrepresent him. I think he is under a misapprehension. The deplorable state in which we find Scottish housing is owing to six years of Socialist maladministration.

Mr. Wheatley: I put this question to the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the housing position is worse in Scotland after six years of Socialist administration. Can he deny that more houses were built in Scotland during the past six years—

The Chairman: Order. There must be some limit.

Mr. Manuel: The question of six years' Socialist rule was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite without his being stopped from the Chair.

The Chairman: I have been asked to do something which is difficult. I am giving a certain amount of latitude, but I do not think that we should go back over the last six years of housing.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If I may go on, Sir Charles, I promise to keep within the bounds of order. What we want to be assured of, and I think that we can be, is that there is provision made that one of the Under-Secretaries shall have housing as his complete charge. That, I believe, is what is happening. After all, we cannot ask two Under-Secretaries to deal with housing.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why not?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Because there are many other things required in Scotland as well as housing.
This Clause provides for every facet of Scottish administration to be properly covered by a Minister responsible to Parliament. That is highly desirable. There may have to be a slight adjustment after this thing has been running for a time, but I think that the set-up is a good one, and that the Clause gives a

chance of Scottish affairs being dealt with by Ministers responsible to Parliament and not, as hitherto, left almost entirely to civil servants.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Granville West: I hope that I shall not incur the resentment of any Scottish Members who wish to speak if I intervene at this stage. I understand that the very convenient arrangements which were made on Second Reading have not been adopted on this occasion.
I want to raise one very short point about the additional Under-Secretary of State to be appointed for the Home Department. If the present situation had not arisen, which has been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), I might have had an opportunity of dealing with this matter in another way, by putting down an Amendment. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider the suggestion which I am about to make.
We realise that the additional Under-Secretary of State is being appointed to assist the Home Secretary in his capacity as Minister for Welsh affairs. Is it intended that the new Minister should be specially charged with Welsh affairs? Nowhere in the Bill is there statutory authority for the creation of an Under-secretaryship specially charged with Welsh affairs. The additional Under-Secretary is being authorised for the Home Office. The Home Office deals with a variety of subjects, including aliens and, in the course of his duties, the new Under-Secretary may have to deal with matters pertaining to aliens. He will also have imposed upon him the affairs of Wales.
As the proposal is being made in order to give pleasure to the people of Wales, nothing should be done in the Bill which would cause them resentment. I therefore suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider my suggestion in the spirit in which I am putting it forward, which is that the additional appointment should be specially earmarked as charged with Welsh affairs. That could easily and conveniently be done in another place. I hope that consideration will be given to the point which I have raised.

Mr, John Taylor: The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) need not have apologised to the Committee for intervening, because Wales is equally concerned in this matter with Scotland. In fact, we ought to apologise to him and his compatriots for taking up so much time in the discussion.
I want to mention a point which is puzzling me, but I do not know whether I am in order in raising it, so I have to explain it by referring to the appointment of the Minister of State for Scottish Affairs. This appointment is not provided for in the Bill, but it has a relationship to the point which I want to raise touching the additional appointments authorised by the Bill. When we discussed the duties of the Minister of State in the House, it is my recollection that the Secretary of State replied that the new Minister would be responsible for education.
Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) specifically raised the point that, in a speech in another place, explaining his own duties, the Minister of State had overlooked his responsibility for the care of education. The Secretary of State explained with great care, with emphasis and detail, that the Minister of State had, in fact, forgotten that he had been asked to be responsible for education, and had overlooked the fact.
Last week, when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that the new Under-Secretary would be responsible for the care of education in Scotland, as well as for fisheries and some odds and ends not specifically dealt with by the other two Under-Secretaries. It has been hinted at by the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) that it would be unwise to have two Ministers responsible for one Department. My puzzlement arises out of the fact that these two Ministers, the Minister of State in another place and the new Under-Secretary here, are both to be responsible for education.
I should therefore be glad if the Under-Secretary would explain which of these two Ministers will have the chief responsibility for that important Department of Government in Scotland, or whether there is to be divided responsibility.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like to underline what has already been stated by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and to ask who is to be responsible for the future of housing in Scotland. I believe that in addition to the Minister who has been mentioned in connection with housing there is to be some kind of assistance either from the other Under-Secretaries or from the Minister of State.
I quite agree that we should not go back into the past, and into old housing controversies, and that we must look towards the future, but from what has taken place there must be anxiety in the minds of all Scottish Members as to how much responsibility for housing will be borne by the various Ministers and whether, in the present set-up, we have an arrangement adequate for the drive which will be required in Scotland if we are to deal with the housing problem in all its magnitude.
I want to be helpful. I suggest that we already have a lesson for the future in what happened last week. Last Friday we discussed questions affecting Scotland and, for the first part of the day, the Under-Secretary who deals with agriculture was on the Front Bench. I had intended to raise, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, the question of Scottish housing and of the expenditure pertaining to it, but although I have a very great admiration for that Under-Secretary of State and for his knowledge and experience of agriculture, I doubted whether he had the necessary experience to answer questions about housing in the industrial areas. The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) was sitting on the Government Front Bench, preparing to answer questions of which he has not the background for answering. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland was in the building, because when the count was called he emerged from the recesses somewhere below.
What was happening to the other Under-Secretary of State for Scotland? From the report of the Press which I have here he was in Edinburgh, receiving a deputation on the subject of housing. This is very important. The deputation was putting very important questions before him likely to affect the whole future of Scottish housing problems. I have here a cutting showing the kind of duty which the


Under-Secretary of State responsible for housing will be called upon to undertake. He will have to receive deputations from the local authorities all over Scotland about housing. I wish him well, because I happen to be his Member of Parliament and I want to see him make a success of it.
Nevertheless, a question was put to the Under-Secretary of State on behalf of the leading local authority in Scotland by the chairman of the Edinburgh Housing Committee, which is deeply concerned about the slow progress of housing in that city. It is also concerned because there is a lack of materials. The question to the Under-Secretary was: "How are we to get over the difficulty about housing materials?", and it specially mentioned lead piping. That is one bottleneck in housing right away. I believe it is almost certain that in a very short time the Under-Secretary of State will be called upon to meet deputations from Ayrshire, where they are concerned not merely about lead piping but about piping for water mains. There are other problems affecting the building of houses in that part of the world, and all kinds of difficulties and bottlenecks.
I therefore suggest that the housing problem is more than one man should be called upon to take upon his shoulders. That point was stressed by the Under-Secretary of State when we discussed housing at the last meeting of the Scottish Standing Committee. He pointed out that at the present rate of building it would take us until 1965 to make good the deficiency. Glasgow needs 100,000 houses. That is the magnitude of the problem. No hon. Member will deny that this is a problem of appalling magnitude. It is not enough to have one Under-Secretary with that huge burden upon his shoulders.
There is the question of labour and how to organise the labour force of Scotland in order to see whether we have sufficient labour to carry out the programme. Again, there is the whole question of priorities. The one Under-Secretary will be up against some thorny problems of priority in building and in materials. What priority is housing to have for raw materials which are not in such demand as lead piping? I have tried to speak to this Motion in the same spirit—

The Chairman: We are getting a little too wide of the Clause.

Mr. Hughes: I was trying to make the sort of speech that Erskine May would have made if he had been a Member of this Committee, and I have been rather successful, because you have not pulled me up until now, Sir Charles.
We have not completely thought out the implications of the housing problem. We have not considered the machinery in sufficient detail. I do not think that the appointment of three Under-Secretaries of State will be adequate to solving the housing problem, a solution which all hon. Members of the Committee, especially those from Scotland, have so much at heart.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants more than three Under-Secretaries of State?

Mr. Hughes: If I believed that 10 Secretaries of State would lead to a drive for housing, I would willingly support them.

Mr. Ross: The speeches made from this side of the Committee are clear evidence to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he has failed to give us an adequate reason why he needs three Under-Secretaries. When we remember the critical times in which we live, and that the passing of the Bill will lead to further expenditure by the Government, we Scottish Members, if not the English and Welsh Members, must make it our business to be careful of the nation's money, and see that we get something which looks like going to be value for the money.
We have not been told whether there is work for this third Under-Secretary, and while it is true that too many cooks spoil the broth, I have no desire to see many inefficient cooks spoiling the Scotch broth which will fall to their care when we pass this Bill. We have been told by the Secretary of State in this Parliament, and when we were on the hustings, that one of the things which the Conservative Party would do was to free the local authorities in Scotland from the distant control of Whitehall. If we are going to free the local authorities in Scotland from the trammels of Whitehall it will mean less work for the Under-Secretaries we have got already without passing this Bill at all.
4.45 p.m.
Last week we approved a Bill for a Minister of State for Scottish Affairs at a salary of £3,000 a year. There are going to be cooks and cooks spoiling the broth, and we want to get a fairly clear picture of what we are going to do. I liked the blind optimism of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) when he said that what we were to get was a Minister responsible to the House. Last week we agreed to the expenditure of £3,000 and we did not get a Minister of State for Scottish Affairs responsible to this House. We have no guarantee that the person who is to be appointed to this office will be a Member of this House. After all, the current slogan is still "Jobs for the blue-blooded boys."

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Rubbish.

Mr. Ross: I agree that they are rubbish.
We have been given a slight indication of what the third Under-Secretary is to do, but what the hon. and gallant Gentleman failed to appreciate was the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), namely, that one of the Under-Secretaries has been' given housing to deal with as well as a few other jobs, including health, police and fire services. Anyone who heard the statement made by the Home Secretary will appreciate that that is not at all times a job that can be pushed off as unimportant. He has also the task of handling Civil Defence, and we must remember that a considerable amount of money has been voted by Parliament for Civil Defence work, so that in itself is a very big task for any Minister to deal with.
Housing is a most important question for Scotland today. The Secretary of State must realise that it did not start five years ago. In 1911 a Royal Commission was first established to go into the need for building houses to let in Scotland. That Commission, reporting in 1917, said that the reason for it was the failure of private enterprise to be interested in building houses for rent, and that started local authorities building houses. From 1917 that situation has gone one—

The Chairman: We are going further back now. We were only going back six years, but now we are going back to 1917, which is beyond the scope of what is before the Committee.

Mr. Ross: I am trying to point out that this new Under-Secretary, for whose consent we asked under this Clause, should devote all his efforts to one particular task, and I was proving that that was the most important task that faces anyone in Scotland today.

Mr. John MacLeod: At the beginning of his speech the hon. Gentleman questioned the need for another Under-Secretary. Now he is making out an even stronger case for a third Under-Secretary.

Mr. Ross: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come in and has begun to listen to the debate.

Mr. MacLeod: I have been here all the time.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening.

Mr. Ross: If he recollected what I said, it was that the Government had not justified the need for this appointment, and that we have not had a fair and true picture of the need for this Under-Secretary in addition to a Minister of State for Scottish Affairs. If one of these three is to be used for this task of housing, then it should be housing alone.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) will know by this time that housing occupies the full-time attention of one man. One of the other Under-Secretaries is to deal with agriculture and forestry. Why this disparity of burden on the Under-Secretaries? Is it a disparity of ability? Why should one man be given housing, health, police, fire and Civil Defence and the other one be left with this single burden of agriculture and fisheries? I do not think that the picture we have been given justifies us in approving of the new set-up, because if one man can deal with housing, health, fire, police there can be added to the shoulders of the second Under-Secretary education and the Home Department as well as agriculture and fisheries, leaving housing to be dealt with by one Under-Secretary.
We have been told that the present Minister of State is meantime looking after education as well as industry, new industries, hydro-electric problems and the Highlands. The Secretary of State for Scotland announced a policy for Scottish housing last week. I do not know whether we could call it announcing; we dragged it from him; he got up and said a few words on the subject. The point is, on what information was that policy based, because he now comes forward and tells us that to carry it out properly he must have a third Under-Secretary of State. Did he announce his policy on the information of the two Under-Secretaries he has, or because the one who was dealing with the problem was obviously over-burdened? Judging by the policy announced, he has not been doing his task very well, but we will come to that tomorrow.
What relation will this Under-Secretary have to the Secretary of State? Will he report directly to him or will his report first be vetted by the man on the spot, the expensive Public Relations Officer? What kind of status has this new Under-Secretary to have in the Government? This is an important point, because we can ignore the existence of this Minister of State for Scottish Affairs, as he is either going to detract from the responsibility of the Secretary of State or he will be pushing the Joint Under-Secretaries of State into the position of third-grade office boys.
The whole policy of the Government has been fittingly described by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire. but I should be very glad indeed if the Secretary of State would try to give us a clear picture of what the duties of these Under-Secretaries are, what their relationship will be to the Minister of State and himself, and also say whether he will not think again about the division of responsibility and place the responsibility for housing in the hands of one man.
We do not know who the fortunate or unfortunate person is to be who will be appointed to the new position. That places us at a decided disadvantage. When we were discussing the issue of the Minister of State for Scottish Affairs last week we were told who he was to be. Indeed, he had been appointed, but there

is secrecy about the extra Under-Secretary.
I do not think there is any subject more important to the people of Scotland than education. Before the end of the 15th century we had established four universities in Scotland as well as a reputation for education. We are told that this new Under-Secretary is to be in charge of education, and we are blindly being asked to agree to the proposal of a third Under-Secretary without knowing who the person is and whether he will be fit to look after Scottish education. I appeal to the Secretary of State to impart more information and to let us know whether this set-up is to be of any service at all to Scotland.

Sir Patrick Spens: If I may be allowed a few minutes to look back, I want to refer to the Schedule, which states that the whole of the Regulations made under the Defence (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Regulations, 1940, are repealed. I want to congratulate the Home Secretary on having repealed this Regulation and on having brought back as part of our constitutional procedure that a paid member of the Executive shall be appointed under an Act of Parliament and not by the Defence Regulations.
I have been thinking back over the years, and two things occur to me. First, I am not at all clear why I and other hon. Members in 1940 formed the opinion that there was power under the Defence Regulations authorising the Executive to appoint a paid Under-Secretary by Regulation, but whether that was so or not we, no doubt, were prepared to authorise the Government to do almost anything that was necessary in time of war.
The second thing that occurs to me is how we allowed to pass without any discussion—there was none to the best of my recollection—the Defence Regulations under which the Executive was empowered to fill the whole of the Front Bench by paid members. To me that was one of the most unconstitutional Acts we ever adopted. If it were to be done by Defence Regulations the power should have been perfectly clear, but the principle that the Executive should be given the power by this House to appoint, by Regulations, paid members of the Government is in my view utterly and


completely wrong. That is a power which we ought to have kept in our own hands even in war-time, and to have insisted that it should be done by Act of Parliament.
That is simply going into past history and I need not develop that aspect. My right hon. and learned Friend has now abolished that, and I hope that under no circumstances will the House of Commons ever allow paid members of the Executive to be appointed by Regulations made by the Executive.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The Secretary of State should be very grateful to my hon. Friends for giving him an opportunity to elaborate the reasons why the Bill was introduced. I agree that there is much to be said for increasing the personnel of the Scottish Office, though its conduct during the last six years does not indicate that, for it has carried out its duties with great skill and energy and with great satisfaction to the people of Scotland.
Nevertheless, this step is being taken, and the Secretary of State should be glad of an opportunity of adumbrating the real reasons behind the Bill. I should like him to answer four specific questions. The first is, why there should be an extra Under-Secretary at all?; second, what are his duties to be?; third, how are they to be discharged?; and, fourth, where is he to operate? Something has been said about his spending most of his time in Scotland. The Committee is entitled to know specifically how much of his time he will spend in Scotland and how much in this House.
The circumstances in which we are discussing the Bill are abnormal. On Thursday the House resolved that the Bill should go to a Standing Committee. Today we were told that it was to be discussed by a Committee of the whole House. As I said earlier, hon. Members are not being given the opportunity which they would normally have to put down Amendments, and therefore, the Committee should welcome this opportunity of asking the Secretary of State to be a little more specific and precise about this subject.
The Bill extends beyond Scotland, but my hon. Friends from Scotland will agree that there are topics of special interest to the people of Scotland. I want to know, in particular, how the work of the

new Under-Secretary is to be allocated with regard to three aspects of Scottish endeavour. I want to know who is to deal with fisheries: during the last five or six years the Scottish Department has given a great deal of attention to inshore fisheries and deep sea fisheries and several fishing Acts have conferred great benefits on Scottish fishing interests. I want to know who is to deal with the allocation of such raw materials as steel, which are required by the shipbuilding yards which range from the Clyde up to Aberdeen; and who is to deal with housing.
The first two subjects are complicated and require detailed consideration and perhaps the whole-time attention of one Minister. Housing is another very complicated topic, and I should like to know who will deal with it. I should like whoever is to reply—I do not know whether it will be the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State—to answer my questions. The Home Secretary has been making copious notes, and it may be that he will reply. Whoever it is, it is right that we should give him an opportunity of justifying the Bill and telling us why it is being introduced.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I should like briefly to answer some of the points which have been raised. In the first place, the Home Secretary has asked me to say that he will take into consideration the point raised by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West) and hopes that the hon. Member will be good enough to accept that reply for the present.
I have not been in my present position for long yet, but already I find that it is very difficult to please everybody. At one moment the Government are thought to be having too many Under-Secretaries at the Scottish Office, and a moment or so later the argument veers round to the suggestion that there are not enough Under-Secretaries because one Under-Secretary ought specifically to be charged with a certain function.
I do not want to go outside the Rules of Order, and that is liable to curtail my remarks—

Mr. Manuel: Try it!

Mr. Stuart: —but I dealt with the question in some detail on the Supplementary Estimate for the Minister of State for Scottish Affairs, which is not before us


today, and I also dealt with the position of the additional Under-Secretary last Thursday. If hon. Members will turn to c. 1776 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for last Thursday they will see that I endeavoured to give the picture of the various duties and functions of the three Under-Secretaries and not only the new one.
With regard to education, originally I stated that the Minister of State would be charged with the work of supervising the educational department, but at that time the Bill had not come before Parliament and I could not take it for granted that the new and additional Under-Secretary would be granted by the House. However, in discussing it on Second Reading, I suggested that the third or additional Under-Secretary would pay particular attention, among other things, to education, and I said "if and when appointed" because I still did not wish to give the impression at that time that I was taking for granted something to which the House had not given its approval.

Mr. Wheatley: Does the right hon. Gentleman's present statement mean that if and when the new Under-Secretary is appointed he will be the person with the responsibility for education and that the Minister of State will step out of the education picture?

Mr. Stuart: That was my intention. That was the point with which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) dealt in particular.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) expanded the discussion somewhat. What Sir Erskine May would have said of such a speech on the Second Reading of a Bill I am not in a position to say, but I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not pursue him over the wide ground which he covered in his remarks. I must point out to him, as I did before, that I do not think the House would agree to the appointment of an unlimited number of Under-Secretaries.
We have four separate Departments within the Scottish Office, and forestry has also to be handled, and as I mentioned the other night, we cannot divide four or five by three. There must be a certain spill-over as there are too many subjects to permit each Under-Secretary to deal only with one.
While I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members who have spoken about the vital importance of housing in Scotland, as I said just now, we cannot have an Under-Secretary for each separate Department, and I believe it is common sense to appoint to the supervision of the work the Under-Secretary who is best suited to the task. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden) is dealing with the agriculture and forestry side of the work.
However, I am not claiming that we have achieved perfection, and this matter can always be re-adjusted in the light of experience if it proves to be the case that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has too heavy a burden cast upon him. The re-arrangement can be made within the Scottish Office without necessarily coming to the House of Commons for additional legislation.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), was good enough to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on getting rid of Defence Regulations under the Bill. We are both very grateful to him for those words. I speak for the Home Secretary as well as myself when I say that we agree with my hon. and learned Friend and that we do not wish to return to that practice. My right hon. and learned Friend—I wish to join in this—desires me to say to my hon. and learned Friend that we are grateful to him for the fresh wind of constitutional purity which blew from South Kensington. In fairness to my right hon. and learned Friend, I must give him credit for one of the better parts of my remarks.

Mr. Manuel: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he reply to the point which I put to him at the beginning? The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), can thank the fresh winds of Scotland for allowing the Kensington breezes to stir at all. I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would reconsider the allocation of duties among the Under-Secretaries in order to give a greater bias towards housing. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman did not consider my remarks worth answering or not, but


he made no reference to them—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."]—not arising from my remarks. There is a bigger job in housing for the Minister of State than there is in the duties which have been allocated to him, and all I am asking is that the right hon. Gentleman shall keep an open mind about the re-allocation of duties if that should appear necessary.

Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Member that I did not mean to ignore the point he put to me. I did say that the work could be rearranged in the light of experience.

Mr. T. Fraser: I should like, on behalf of the Opposition, to say "Thank you" to the Home Secretary for his undertaking to give thought to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. West). It seems appropriate that, if possible, we should provide in the Bill that the additional Under-Secretary at the Home Office will probably be concerned with the duties in Wales.
I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland has more appreciated our concern about the additional appointments in Scotland this afternoon than he has done hitherto. He expressed gratitude to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), for his commending the Government for providing in the Bill that additional Ministers shall be appointed in future by Act of Parliament, so that the House shall have an opportunity of considering whether or not the Executive are entitled to add one or more to their number.
It is precisely because we have an opportunity of discussing the additional appointment for Scotland that we thought we should avail ourselves of the chance of questioning the appointment, not necessarily arguing that the appointment ought not to be made, but because we have a right to know what the additional Member of the Government will do. That is what the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, was saying in the course of his remarks.
5.15 p.m.
The other day, when we discussed the Second Reading of the Bill, some of us offered criticisms which have been accepted as an assertion of our opposition to any additional Ministers but that is not what they were. We said that no

case had been made out. We did not say that we oppose a third Under-Secretary, nor that we would have opposed a fourth. What we wanted the Secretary of State to do was to come to the House, either during Second Reading, which would have been better than now, or at some appropriate time, and say that he had these four Departments at the Scottish Office, the counterpart of which required the attention of five Ministers, with five Departments, Under-Secretaries and what not, in England and Wales; that it was impossible for two Under-Secretaries to cover the four Departments, which represent the work of five Departments in England and Wales, and that he found, in the light of his short experience, that it was absolutely necessary to have additional assistance.
We could have understood if the right hon. Gentleman had even said that he had already found that it was necessary to have an Under-Secretary for each of the Departments, or that he needed two Under-Secretaries for the Department of Health; that housing was so important that it would need the full-time attention of one Under-Secretary, and that health was so important that it needed the full time attention of another. We could have understood that. Our difficulty was, and, in a measure, still is, that we have not been told that the burden is so heavy.
The Home Secretary, in moving the Second Reading the other day, repeated the remarks of the Secretary of State for Scotland in saying that these appointments are made in consequence of reports made by a Tory Party committee some two years and more ago. They were not made in consequence of any experience of government whatever, not even the experience of government before 1945 or in pre-war years.

Mr. Stuart: There were two ex-Secretaries of State on the committee.

Mr. Fraser: I should not like to cover again the ground I covered the other day, but one of the ex-Secretaries of State made a speech at exactly the same time telling his junior Unionists in Kelvingrove that they would have to do without a Nationalist policy in Scotland, saying something to please the Scottish Nationalists, with a view to getting into power. I quoted the speech which was reported in a Glasgow evening newspaper.
That was our criticism of the appointment. No case has been made for it as far as we could see it had been done for electoral purpose.
The Secretary of State has got nearer today to appreciating what we have in mind. We are not opposed to the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary. We did, however, want the Secretary of State—

Mr. J. MacLeod: I am finding it very difficult to understand the hon. Member. Will he say whether he is in favour of the appointment of the additional Under-Secretary or not?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member probably has not taken the trouble to read the speech I made the other day. He certainly was not here to hear it, and I shall not bore the Committee by telling him all that I then said. I said, and I repeat, that it is the duty of the Government, when asking for Parliamentary assent to the appointment of an additional Minister, to justify that appointment and not merely to say that a Tory Party committee in 1949 said, "We would do this if ever we were returned to power." That is not enough.

Mr. MacLeod: The hon. Gentleman was himself Under-Secretary of State. Surely, therefore, he can say whether or not he believes in the additional appointment.

Mr. Fraser: I have stated my views about the work of the Scottish Office and I am not expanding them here this afternoon.
I repeat that the Government have a right and a responsibility to look at the organisation of government and that, whenever they think that the efficiency of government will be improved by the appointment of additional Ministers, they ought to come to Parliament to ask for the appointment. Our criticism was, and still is, so far as Scotland is concerned, that we were not given adequate justification for the appointments. All that we were given was an explanation of the allocation of duties between the Under-Secretaries. It would be equally easy to do as we suggest if the number of junior Ministers to be appointed was four—it would be much easier, in fact, because there are four Departments.
But I do not want to carry the fight any further. I merely say, as we pass from the Clause, that it will provide for the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary. I hope that this appointment will result in the affairs of Scotland being the better looked after and will result in decisions being taken more expeditiously. I sincerely hope that experience will prove that the apprehensions which I expressed the other day are not at all justified.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Butcher.]

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I am glad at this last stage of the Bill to say one or two things about it. I preface the two points which I should like to make by saying that I welcome the Bill and that what I have to say about it is subject to the proper handling of matters by the Secretary of State and his Department.
I am not so sure that we have seen sound signs of that so far. We were told the other day that education was to be handled by the Minister of State. Now, we are told that that is only a temporary arrangement and that when the third Under-Secretary is appointed, education will be added to his duties. Why on earth could it not have been kept in the hands of the Secretary of State himself for the couple of months concerned? Why take a subject like this and pass it about between two more hands instead of keeping it in the Secretary of State's hands until the Under-Secretary is appointed?
I take it that the appointment of the third Under-Secretary, or the provision for his appointment in the Bill, does not stand by itself. It is, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.- Colonel Elliot) described it the other day, the last stage in putting together a new administrative set-up. The Secretary of State does not seem so far to have been


at all happy in his handling of the new administrative set-up. In providing for this new Under-Secretary, has he taken into consideration the relations of the Scottish Office with a number of the United Kingdom Departments, which, in many cases, exercise a very great deal of responsibility in regard to Scottish affairs?
I was not fortunate enough to be called on the Second Reading of the Bill. Had I spoken then, I might have been able to develop the point further than I may do now. So far as I am concerned, the appointment of an additional Minister to the Scottish Office is definitely a good thing. Whether it will work out well with the present Administration in power, depends upon the right hon. Gentleman in improving a little on his handling of Scottish affairs so far.
The additional appointments are a good thing, for this reason: the tendency is always for the Minister to find himself—this applies to most Departments—taking decisions which are really executive in character rather than policy-making; they are matters for a senior executive rather than for someone who is exploring the field of policy. This has been particularly true in the case of the Scottish Office. So many executive decisions have needed to be made that there has been a tendency for the Ministerial team to regard itself in that way. It is a good thing to have a thinning out of the Ministerial team and to have the work spread over a larger number of Ministers, so that they will have more leisure to think out some of the underlying problems behind executive decisions.
There is one point which has not been referred to in any of the discussions on the Bill. What strikes me most about this reform in Scottish affairs is the contrast with the last reform that was made in their administration. The main point of that reform in 1948 was that it increased the control exercised by the House over Scottish affairs. The important thing about this Bill is that it increases the strength of the Executive without any corresponding increase in the power of the House to hold the Executive responsible. The increased number of Ministers, having all their decisions channelled finally through the Secretary of State, as he has wisely reminded us, will make it rather more difficult for the House to exercise its

function of supervising the Executive and holding it responsible.
That illustrates pretty clearly the difference in the approach of the two sides of the House to this kind of question. From the point of view of hon. Members opposite, the important thing is to strengthen the executive in a case of this sort. From the viewpoint of my hon. Friends on this side, what is important is to strengthen the power of Members of the House to hold the Executive to its responsibility. The Secretary of State ought to be warned that as a result of the Bill there is quite likely to be an increased demand for reform along these lines.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley, for example, the other day asked for increased time for questioning Scottish Ministers. That did not arise particularly from this Bill, but it is the kind of request that is likely to be fostered by the passing of the Bill. It is a little unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill as it affects Scotland, should not have shown that he was alive to that question and was prepared to consider some increased power to the legislative function of Government corresponding to this increase in the strength of the Executive. I welcome the provision of additional Ministers for Scottish affairs, and I hope that in the hands of the Government, and particularly of furture Governments, it will prove to be of benefit to Scotland.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think it should be clearly understood that we do not object to the provisions of this Bill, that we welcome any additional Under-Secretaries that would enable us to get a bigger drive as far as the major problem in Scotland is concerned, that of housing. I, for one, wish the Government good luck in their task, and we will not begrudge them any credit that they may get if they succeed in producing the houses they promised us with such enthusiasm on the occasion of the last General Election, but that number is rather vague.
In my constituency we were told they were going to build three houses for every two that are to be built now. I think we require far more Under-Secretaries to concentrate all their intellectual powers if


that programme is to be achieved. I think the Scottish Office should be strengthened, in personnel and in every way, against the other Departments. There has been some doubt about the various priorities; for example, there was doubt in the mind of the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister during a sitting of the Scottish Grand Committee. Then he argued that housing should have equal priority with defence. I do not know what that means. I do not know what "equal priority" means, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman does; but it showed what was the doubt that was in his mind—and it was a very interesting speech that he gave to the Committee—when he stressed the relative importance of housing in the economic life of Scotland.
I think the Scottish Office will have to struggle every inch of the way against the Defence Ministries if we are going to get the houses we have been promised. I can see a big struggle coming along for labour, for raw materials and for everything that is needed in housing which is also needed by the Defence Department, so I am glad to see the Ministry strengthened in some respects, and I only hope it will be equal to the task in front of it.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. J. Stuart: In reply to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. M. MacPherson), perhaps I should say something again on the subject of education. The hon. Member asked why this was passed from the Minister of State to the new Under-Secretary. The perfectly fair and honest answer is that in taking up office I had a very onerous task to acquaint myself with the many problems confronting me in the Scottish Office, and I thought it was to the better interest of education to handle it in that way. I admit that it is a matter which can be argued otherwise.
With regard to the hon. Member's anxiety about the powers of the Executive in this House, I do not think this is an occasion on which the House would wish to hear my views on this very interesting subject; but I think it would be fair to say that I, personally, at any rate, have little doubt that this House will find a way of keeping the Executive in order, if

they are thought to be becoming too powerful.
In reply to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I can only say that unfortunately, or in some respects fortunately, there is to be a housing debate tomorrow when, perhaps, there will be an opportunity to pursue the matter; but I do not wish to repeat myself again and again. I have endeavoured to make the position clear in so far as the additional Under-Secretary is concerned, and I hope that the House will now agree to give us the Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (FOYLE FISHERIES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In the nature of things it is only very rarely that a Home Secretary, rising to move in the House the Second Reading of a Bill dealing with Irish affairs, can, with any confidence, claim that the Measure is non-controversial.
I do not propose to tempt Providence in that way on this occasion, but perhaps I may go so far as to say that the omens today are more auspicious than usual. The Bill which I am moving has its origin and its justification in an agreement between the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic to take joint action in the area of the River Foyle and Lough Foyle to protect, preserve and improve the valuable salmon fisheries which have suffered severely for many years from the depredations of poachers.
The two Governments have agreed in principle to acquire jointly the fisheries in the tidal waters and set up for their administration a Foyle Fisheries Commission on which each Government shall have the same number of representatives as the other. A common code of Regulations will apply throughout the area, and poachers, who have hitherto been in-


clined to poach just over the Border, so that they can, if detected, escape into their country of residence with a reasonable prospect of avoiding prosecution, will no longer be able to do this. A resident of one country who offends against the common code in the other country will be guilty of an offence in his country of residence, and, if caught in the act, will be sent back there for trial.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: There is only one country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does that apply to Scotland?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has not, I think, got the geographical background.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, I can see it from my constituency.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am dealing with Lough Foyle in Northern Ireland at the moment. I am using that term in its geographical sense and with the district on the Border between Northern Ireland in its political sense and the Republic of Ireland. I do not follow the implication of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. Delargy: Could I make it clear?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes.

Mr. Delargy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is using the word "countries" as though there were two countries there. With great respect he is not using a geographical or historical term, but merely a legal term which, in my opinion, is really a legal fiction.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the hon. Gentleman will, with a little further trouble, appreciate what I was trying to indicate, and I think he will pardon me, in view of the background of his interruption, if I do not follow more closely its political connotation.
May I just indicate to the House the requirement of giving effect to the agreement between the two Governments? The legislation that is required in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic is to give effect to the agreement which I have mentioned, and legislation will be necessary both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic, and it is intended that the legislation to be presented in both

Legislatures shall be, as nearly as possible, in similar terms. The only differences will be those necessitated by the existing constitutional and legal differences in the two countries.
The greater part of the legislation required will consist of detailed provision regarding fishery administration, restriction of the use of nets, provisions as to the close season, and so on. On those matters the Northern Ireland Parliament is already competent to legislate, but the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, imposed limitations on the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, as a result of which that Parliament is not competent to deal with all the matters which arise from the agreement about the Foyle fisheries.
Section 4 of the Act of 1920 prohibits the Northern Ireland Parliament from making laws in respect of matters relating to that portion of Ireland outside its jurisdiction, or in respect of any relations with foreign States or offences connected with such relations, or in respect of the return of fugitive offenders from or to any part of His Majesty's Dominions. The Northern Ireland Parliament has no power to deal with any of those matters unless it is expressly enabled to do so by further legislation of the Imperial Parliament. That is the purpose of this Bill.
It is purely an enabling Measure, without which the Northern Ireland Parliament would not be competent to pass the legislation which it must pass if effect is to be given to the measures which the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Irish Republic both agree they ought jointly to take in the interests of preserving and improving these valuable fisheries.
If I may very briefly indicate the provisions of the Bill, Clause (1, a) empowers the Northern Ireland Parliament to authorise the making and carrying out of a formal agreement with the authorities in the Republic to acquire the fisheries in the Foyle area. It is an interesting historical point with which I shall not deal at any length, but in which the House might be interested—that the greater part of the fisheries are at present owned by the Honourable the Irish Society, an ancient body of trustees for public purposes, which derives its title to the fisheries in the tidal waters from letters patent granted in 1613 and 1662.
The Society has voluntarily agreed to sell its rights for £100,000 to the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland and the Minister for Agriculture for the Republic acting jointly. Each Government will pay £50,000 for these rights. Provision will be made for reasonable compensation to be paid to any other person who can show that he has had lawful rights diminished or extinguished by the transfer.
Clause (1, b) enables the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate for the establishment of a Foyle Fisheries Commission. In this Commission, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic will have equal representation. I do not think I need say very much about the functions of the Commission, which will include conservation, protection and improvement of the fisheries in the Foyle area generally. I submit to the House that it will be clearly useful for the whole area to be administered together.
Clause (1, c) empowers the Northern Ireland Parliament to make it an offence for a person resident in Northern Ireland to do anything on the other side of the Border in the Foyle area which would be an offence against fishery laws if done in the Northern Ireland part of the Foyle area. I have already explained the purpose of that.
Clause (1, d) enables the Northern Ireland Parliament to make it possible for residents of the Republic who may be caught poaching in the Foyle area in Northern Ireland to be handed over to the police in the Republic to be dealt with for the offence in the courts of their own country, and it is the intention that so far as possible this should be done. The House will appreciate that this is really ancillary to Clause (1, c), so that when the offender is handed over he will be treated as having committed the offence in his own country.
I wish to say a word on this because it is an unusual provision, but any Bill which gets complete agreement from the whole of Ireland is an unusual Measure. I do not think anyone in the House would dispute that. I ask the House to note that by using the words "found offending" in Clause (1, d) the Bill enables the Parliament of Northern Ireland to legislate only in regard to persons caught in the act and it is intended that the two

Irish Bills should confine this provision to poachers who either refuse to desist from their offences when required or refuse to give their names and addresses on demand.
The provisions will hit only those poachers who are caught red-handed poaching outside their own country, and either wilfully continue to defy the law after detection, or try to avoid punishment by concealing their names and addresses. Therefore, I would point out to the House that two conditions must be fulfilled; the offender must be caught red-handed and there must be reason to believe that he is resident in the Republic.
The next point I wish to impress on the House is that the arrangement will be reciprocal. The third point is that it is not likely to be detrimental to the persons involved, for these reasons. The object is to enable a man to be tried by the courts of his country of residence. If I may refer to something which I am sure is in the minds of hon. Members—whether we are giving too great powers to the Government of Northern Ireland about what is our responsibility—I would point out that the Parliament of Northern Ireland can, without enabling powers, provide for the arrest of anyone caught offending against the fishery laws on Northern Ireland territory. It has that power which is a transferred power under the Government of Ireland Act.
Second, if a resident of the Republic is arrested in Northern Ireland and is not handed over, he will still have all the protection of the law. This does not cut out his present legal rights. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will appreciate, one has to consider this further point. In the absence of arrangements for handing over a poacher who is caught red-handed in Northern Ireland, he would have to be arrested and detained until trial, because if he returned to Southern Ireland the procedure of issuing a warrant and getting it backed by the courts of the Republic would be very cumbersome for dealing with this class of offence. It would, in fact—and one must face the point—result in the procedure have just mentioned: the man would be arrested and detained in imprisonment until trial.
Therefore, from the point of view of the persons affected we thought this was a procedure which is speedy, which has


the essential features of justice and which will result in the people being dealt with in their territory of origin. I hope the House will forgive me for having dealt at some length with that point, but I know that hon. Members are most jealous to see that any provision dealing with the liberty of an individual is justified by whoever puts it forward in the House.
Clause (1, e) seems unusual, but I am informed that the smuggling of salmon is a lucrative business, and that these provisions are necessary. I now come to Clause 2 and, again, I am sorry to take up so much time. The Clause proposes that the Commission should be exempted from the payment of Property Tax and Income Tax. That is a matter upon which the House is entitled to ask for an explanation. This will not involve any reduction in the revenue accruing to the Exchequer from the Foyle fisheries, because the Irish Society, as I have mentioned, is a charitable institution, and, for that reason, is already exempt from taxation.
The Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic both agree that to avoid doubts and difficulties which might otherwise arise, and which do not think I do not need to go into at length, it is desirable that there should be a statutory exemption.

Mr. Leslie Hale: This seemed to me the most objectionable Clause in the Bill. I have no doubt that there is an explanation for it, and that the explanation is perfectly reasonable. But it is the sort of Clause which, if given publicity, does cause disquiet in the minds of many people; and I think we should be told why it is necessary to introduce it if they are not liable to taxation anyway.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The point I was making was that it will not involve any reduction in the revenue to the Exchequer, because at the moment the Irish Society is a charitable institution and is exempt from tax. But both Governments agree that to avoid the doubts and difficulties which might otherwise arise it is desirable that there should be a statutory exemption.
If the Commission were assessed for tax it would be necessary to make adjustments between the two Governments on account of the different levels

of taxation from time to time in the two countries. A direct declaration of exemption will make the position of the Commission quite clear in this respect. So that one is really adopting a procedure which prevents difficulties arising between two countries at no loss to the Revenue at all. Therefore, I hope the House will allow what is an exceptional provision, and that is the reason I wanted to put it to the House, just as I did with the last provision.
Considering that on many fundamental questions the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic hold directly contrary views, their agreement to join together in overcoming the difficulties which have arisen in the Foyle area is no small achievement. Each Government will be making considerable concessions, and at a time when we all hope for so much from attempts at international agreement in every sphere these proposals for the Foyle area merit, I suggest, a welcome from this House.
The House may remember that earlier this year we had a debate on Northern Ireland and that hon. Members on both sides expressed the hope that moderation on the part of the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Republic would make possible increased co-operation between the two communities. I hope the House will share my view that the setting up of the Foyle Commission will be a welcome step in the right direction, and that for that reason they will give the Bill their support.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I welcome this Bill, with the preliminary negotiations for which I had the responsibility while I held office, and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on being able to present to the House this further Measure towards Home Rule for Ireland. It is not a very much larger concession, but it steadily takes us along the road where in the end Irishmen, by agreement among Irishmen, will be responsible for Irish affairs.
This Bill has a very interesting history, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. It originates in the arrangements made by the City of London for turning the City of Derry in Northern Ireland into Londonderry, and for arranging for some of the necessary work which had to be done in that connection. I would say


at once how pleasing it is to find that even on the national sport of salmon poaching these two countries, which quarrel about so much, can be agreed in taking some action which might almost be supposed to be against the Irish temperament altogether. It does show the extent to which they have managed to get together.
There has, of course, been some litigation in recent years about this matter, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not allude. I do not think I am called on to make any comment on it except perhaps to say that there is a claim by some people. in the Republic of Ireland that only the land in Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland; that the territorial waters around are part of the Irish Republic, and that the tidal waters are all part of the Irish Republic. I do not think that has been put forward by the Government of the Republic, but it is put forward by certain people living in the Republic. What I wish to say on behalf of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House is that we do not recognise it and have never recognised it as a legitimate claim. It is so fantastic that nowhere, except in Ireland, could one expect to have such a claim put forward, and I wish to make it quite clear that we do not share, and never have shared, that particular view of the situation.
What this Bill does do, and it does it very cleverly, is to leave undecided where in the tidal waters of the Foyle the boundary really is between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is very important. In point of fact that boundary has never been agreed. Only the Irish could have found a way of dealing with the situation so that they can get their own way without raising in this Bill that particularly awkward area. It does not matter whether the man is found on either side of this very ill-defined boundary, because he is to be tried in the country where he resides. So it does not matter very much whether he is a few yards on one side or the other of what either Government imagines is the boundary line. That is a typical Irish way of dealing practically with a problem that would be insoluble to the minds of the more practical English, or the more dogmatic Scots. There again I think

we must congratulate them, and ourselves, on the final decision which has been taken.
These fisheries are very valuable and this charity of the Irish Society is a very important charity. It is unfortunate that the disputes in recent years regarding this matter have deprived the charity of a substantial part if not the whole of its income. I am quite certain that this arrangement by which they get £100,000 capital sum, £50,000 from each side, represents a reasonable arrangement and one about which the society need have no qualms. It will enable this whole matter to be dealt with in the future by bodies fully capable of enforcing the laws and the byelaws which are to be made in respect of the fisheries.
I think everyone is to be congratulated on this result of the negotiations. There may of course be a few other people who have some rights in these fisheries. I do not think there can be very many, in fact, some authorities think there is none. But there may be a few people with small rights, and I understand the arrangement is that if anyone can prove his right he also will be compensated, and that the compensation will be paid equally to both sides. I rather imagine that that is so, and that, if any claims are admitted, they will be of equal number from both Northern Ireland and the Republic. I cannot see their agreeing very easily unless it is reciprocal, otherwise I suspect there will not be any claim worth recognising.
This Bill does give us proof of the way in which, on practical issues that concern both good government and reasonable relationships, these two countries, or rather this province and this self-governing State, can work together. It is to be welcomed, especially by all of us in this House, for that if for no other reason, I am certain that, no matter what our views may be on the ancient controversies and deplorable happenings in history with regard to this country, we do desire to see concord and prosperity in this small island. I am quite certain that the more they can get back to practical affairs and prove that, when it comes to managing affairs that are their joint responsibility, the more they can succeed, the better it will be for the world, and the better it will be for Ireland, without


distinction between the six and the twenty-six counties.
In the hope that, today, we are making a further contribution towards promoting understanding between Irishmen themselves, I have very much pleasure, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, in assuring the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary of our complete support for this Measure.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. William Wellwood: This enabling Bill is just another example of that extraordinary understanding which exists between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), referred a few days ago.
Unfortunately, I must confess that, in reaching this understanding, there has been a considerable delay. To my knowledge, negotiations have been going on certainly for the last 30 years, and they have been passed from Attorney-General to Attorney-General in Northern Ireland throughout the existence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. During those years, the negotiations have always been very friendly, and it is a matter of very great pleasure to me that, at last, materialisation has been reached. I hope that, when this Bill goes on the Statute Book, it will be a complete success and that it will be another feather in the cap of our Home Secretary.
I feel quite sure that it will be a great success. Almost all the Foyle fisheries are within my constituency in Northern Ireland, and I have for long enough appreciated the good work done by the Honourable the Irish Society for many years. I think that this is a matter for satisfaction in that it will no longer be a drag on their operations, but will enable them to devote their efforts to their other charity in Northern Ireland, which is in my constituency, particularly in Londonderry and Londonderry County.
The Honourable the Irish Society devote their attention to many events and developments in Northern Ireland. They have endowed schools there, and they do very much appreciate the money which themselves will save by means of this enabling Bill, quite apart from the fact that they are to receive a capital sum of £100,000. I am afraid, however, that

this sum will have been considerably reduced by the time all the law charges over the period of 30 years have been met. I think those charges will be considerable, if they have not already been met as they went along, and I do not know whether that is so or not.
My right hon. and learned Friend has explained all the technicalities of this Bill, and I am not qualified to make any remarks about a legal matter such as this. I will merely say that, while I regret that the Honourable the Irish Society is losing some of its property in Northern Ireland, I welcome the Bill and give it my wholehearted support.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I am not quite certain, because the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken did not himself make it explicit, whether we have just listened to a maiden speech or not. It is a very odd but charming coincidence that I, the very hon. Member who strongly opposed his election to this House, should congratulate him upon such a charming speech. I hope that, when Northern Ireland matters are being discussed in this House, we shall hear the hon. Gentleman very often in future.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, and also my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) the former Home Secretary, have been at great pains to persuade the House that this is one of those Measures concerning Irish affairs which is not controversial. I do not share the view that we should take that for granted. If I were so minded, and if I were not the peaceable sort of man I am, I could find quite a few points of controversy in this Bill.
I might be able, for example, to point out that it confers still further powers on the Government in Northern Ireland, and that many of us are seriously of opinion that no further powers should be conferred upon that Government until such time as we are convinced that the powers which they have already are administered in a just and democratic matter, with the rights of minorities properly safeguarded. I could also, if I were so minded, point out that we are conferring still further powers on the Northern Ireland police force, and that it is well within the recollection of


the House that many serious accusations have been made against this force.
However, I am not in a controversial mood this afternoon. There was at least one statement made by my right hon. Friend which gave me hope indeed. It was when he said that he was looking forward to the time when Irishmen would be responsible for Irish affairs. I do most heartily welcome this somewhat belated conversion, because, when my right hon. Friend was in office—

Mr. Ede: I have thought so all my life.

Mr. Delargy: I do not remember, when my right hon. Friend was Home Secretary and I advocated this particular policy, that I found him very forthcoming.

Mr. Ede: I had to administer the law as it is.

Mr. Delargy: We know that the Home Secretary administers the law, but he should also change it when that law is unjust. Particularly when the Labour Party is in office, the Home Secretary should legislate to change an unjust law, and I regret that my right hon. Friend did not do it.
However, I do not want to argue this point. I admit the convenience of this Bill, but I deplore the necessity for it. We are debating this Measure because, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, the Irish Border runs across Lough Foyle, and, apparently, not only across the surface, but right down to the bed of the lake. It runs in a similar fashion through other odd quarters, through streets and houses and backyards and over fences—the most absurd border in all the history of geography. The sooner we get rid of this absurdity the better. I would be very well prepared to debate that proposition here and now, but I have a feeling that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may not think I was completely within the rules of order.
There is another absurdity about this Bill, which I may call a geographical Bill, and this particular absurdity still further complicates my notions of geography. I observe that the Bill is backed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, the gentleman who, we were assured, was to give his whole time to the administration of Welsh affairs. I regret that he is not in his

place; he has probably gone to the Welsh Office. What a Minister for Wales has to do with the administration of Irish affairs is quite beyond my capacity to understand. I believe that this is a studied and deliberate insult to the Welsh people, and I think it is only proper that, on their behalf, someone should protest.
We all remember that, during the General Election, the Tory Party manifesto pointed out the very great importance of Welsh affairs, and promised that a special Minister was to be responsible for them. His cares were so great that he would have a special Department of his own. Of course, the Welsh people have not got that separate Minister; all they have got is an Under-Secretary in the Home Office, who is, apparently, also responsible for affairs in Northern Ireland. That promise, like so many promises which the Tories made during the Election, has gone with the wind.
Nevertheless, despite that and the other absurdities contained in the Bill, I assure the Home Secretary that I do not intend to divide the House on this matter. I hope that what I have said in regard to the very sad necessity for the Bill at all might be borne in mind, and I hope that the approval for my policy, which has been shown by the former Home Secretary, may also be exhibited by the present one.

6.12 p.m.

Professor Savory: I certainly welcome this Bill, because I think it a very valuable contribution to the co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
This is not the first occasion on which this co-operation has taken place, because it will be within the recollection of the House that we passed a Bill in regard to the waters of Lough Erne and the provision of electricity, which was a very good example of such co-operation. Only recently, there have been negotiations between the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic, and the Minister of Commerce from Northern Ireland has visited Dublin and been warmly entertained there, while the Minister of Commerce from the Republic has visited Belfast. These negotiations have now resulted in an agreement for the purchase of the Great Northern Railway.
I congratulate very heartily my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on his very lucid statement and his very clear explanation of the Bill, and I would also express my gratitude to the former Home Secretary for the very skilful way in which in the past he has presided over these negotiations. He was certainly very helpful in bringing them to a satisfactory conclusion. I think we should also pay tribute to the Honourable the Irish Society for having sold, for what I consider—and I am sure is the case—a very moderate sum, its rights in this matter.
These rights are very ancient. They were conferred on the Society by King James I, and they have always been exercised with extraordinary moderation and generosity. I have visited the schools in Londonderry and Coleraine, which are not merely national schools, but also secondary schools, which have been built and subsidised by the Honourable the Irish Society. Every year, the Society send a deputation to Northern Ireland to cary out an inspection of their property, and they are always ready to listen to any appeal to their generosity.
For instance, it is only a very short time ago that, when they saw that the gates of Londonderry Cathedral were in a rather parlous state, they immediately made a generous offer to provide new gates for the Cathedral of Derry.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has spoken favourably and eloquently about the co-operation between Northern and Southern Ireland. Will he say how far he would extend that? Would he extend it in the matter of legislation and administration over the whole island, and, if so, why does he support partition?

Professor Savory: The convincing answer which I can give to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that under the 1920 Act a provision was made for a Joint Council of the whole of Ireland on which 20 members were to be nominated by Southern Ireland and 20 by Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): This Bill deals with fisheries.

Professor Savory: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am only endeavouring

to answer the question put to me by the hon. and learned Member opposite.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that question was a little wide, too.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I respectfully point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman was allowed by you, and without any objection, to express a favourable view upon co-operation between Northern and Southern Ireland. I ventured to ask him how far he would extend that—whether he would extend it to legislation and administration.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The discussion must now be limited to the Bill.

Professor Savory: I think I am in order in saying that so far as fisheries and railways are concerned they were handed over by the Act of 1920 to the Council of the whole of Ireland consisting of 20 members from the North and 20 from the South to be presided over by the Lord Lieutenant, but, unfortunately, that Council, due to no fault of Northern Ireland, never came into existence. Had it done so, it would have been a most valuable means of co-operation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has pointed out the legal necessity for the introduction of this Bill. It is because Clause 4 of the 1920 Act not merely prohibits Northern Ireland from having relations with foreign countries, but also with any other part of His Majesty's Dominions. The Republic of Eire has become a foreign country, and clearly, therefore, it comes under that Clause. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend has had to demand legislation to enable Northern Ireland to carry out this agreement, because, obviously, it consists of a relation between Northern Ireland and a foreign country. I feel that this is a very encouraging sign of co-operation—the third instance of co-operation which comes to my mind—between the North and the South, and I certainly hope very much it will continue.
When I was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member opposite, I was pointing out that the Honourable the Irish Society has made a very valuable concession in handing over these rights which brought in a very large revenue in the past, in order to enable this agree-


ment to be carried out. Throughout all history, I think this Society in its treatment of its tenants in Northern Ireland and of its charitable trusts has behaved with the utmost generosity, and that on this occasion it has really excelled itself. I think that we in this House should express great gratitude towards it.
I do not wish, as did the last speaker, to introduce a discordant note into this discussion. It would be very easy for me to answer the points he raised, but in view of the very conciliatory—

Mr. Manuel: Regarding the introduction of a discordant note, I think the hon. Gentleman has already done that. He mentioned James I of England when he he should have said James VI of Scotland.

Professor Savory: It was as James I of England and not as James VI of Scotland that he granted these Letters Patent to the Honourable the Irish Society.
In view of the very conciliatory speeches made by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the former Home Secretary, to whom I have already expressed our gratitude for his efforts in bringing about this agreement, I shall not follow the last speaker in entering upon a discordant note, although I am sorely tempted to answer the charges he has made. But as both sides of the House are, I believe, going to give this Bill a unanimous passage, I should be sorry to disturb the harmony so beautifully introduced by the Home Secretary and the ex-Home Secretary.

6.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde: I shall only detain the House for a few minutes to express my own pleasure at the prospect of this Bill reaching the Statute Book. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory), said, the keynote of the Bill is cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Eire. The Bill is welcomed not only by every quarter in this House, in spite of what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) feels about possible controversy, but also by both Governments in Ireland. Indeed, it is welcomed by everyone except the members of the poaching community who will feel,

no doubt, that as a result of this Bill their income will be substantially reduced. We have heard something about the interesting historical associations of this Bill.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to the poaching community. To whom does he refer under that description? Does he mean the people who traffic backwards and forwards across the Border between the north and the south, and, if so, would it not be a good idea to get rid of that Border and to have the administration and legislation for the whole island under one Government? Like his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has expressed his appreciation of the co-operation between north and south. Would he be in favour of extending that co-operation into the field of legislation and administration?

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I am afraid I would be out of order if I answered that question as I should like to do. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me who these poachers are. Most of them come from the Eire side of the Border, from County Donegal, but I must be truthful and admit that there may be one or two adventurers from Northern Ireland as well. But, unquestionably, the majority come from County Donegal.
As I was saying, we have heard a good deal about the very interesting historical associations of this Bill, about the Irish Society and its connection with the City of London, and the fact that it was the intervention of the City through the grant of James I which caused the change of name from Derry to Londonderry. I think I am justified in drawing the attention of the House to the very remarkable historical conspectus of the fisheries made by the late Mr. Timothy Healy, who was for many years a Member of this House and the first Governor-General of the Irish Free State. In a book which he called "Stolen Waters," and which was published in 1913, he showed how from the time of the original grant the Irish Society has suffered from poaching.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hook to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was, if my memory serves me correctly, about another loch, Lough Neagh, and not about the one under discussion in this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I think the hon. and learned Member is misinformed. The book refers to several waters in the North of Ireland, including Lough Foyle and the River Foyle, and there is a very considerable portion of the book devoted to other waters, but Lough Foyle also occupies a considerable part of the book.
Mr. Healy showed how the chief trouble of the Irish Society has always been poachers, and sometimes poachers placed in a very exalted position. One of them, I think the ancestor of the noble Lord the Marquess of Donegal, staked a claim to have four salmon out of the Foyle each day, and had to be bought off. Up to 1920, injunctions granted by the courts all over Ireland had some effect in this matter, but after that year, for reasons into which I need not enter, the courts in the Irish Free State or the Republic of Eire refused to grant those injunctions. As a result, about three fifths of the Lough and the river became quite valueless to the Irish Society from the point of view of revenue.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred to other litigation. As a result of that litigation between the Irish Society and the authorities in Southern Ireland, the Governments of both North and South very properly realised that if the valuable fisheries were to be saved intact, the only solution was for the private rights owned by the Irish Society in the Lough to be extinguished and acquired by the two Governments at present functioning in Ireland.
Hitherto, the fact that the fisheries are situated on the border between Northern Ireland and Eire has made it impossible to enforce the fishery laws owing to doubts about the extent of the jurisdiction of the courts on either side. I was very glad to note that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) paid a tribute to the ingenious method by which any possible conflict of jurisdiction as regards this Bill has been obviated. This is, I think, a promising experiment in joint Government, and it may well point a way to similar ventures between the two Governments in the future.
There is only one other point I wish to make. I think it was the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who I do not see in his place at the moment, who raised the question of Income Tax. Surely, the proposed exemption from

Income Tax in Clause 2 of the Bill is a logical result of the proposed Government ownership. As the respective Exchequers of Northern Ireland and Eire will in any event reap all the profits and bear all the losses in equal shares, it would surely be invidious to subject the Commission's income to unequal codes of taxation.
I hope that the Eire authorities will play their part in the contemplated arrangements under this Bill—the setting up of a joint Commission to administer the fisheries. Indeed, I am sure they will do so, and that there will be an abundance of good will on both sides of the Border in this practical administration. It is in the interests of both to cooperate in this matter and thus to preserve and maintain this common asset of great value and hand it down undamaged to the posterity of both countries.

6.30 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: It has been said by several speakers in the debate that this Bill has the agreement of the whole of Ireland. I am not at all sure about that because it seems to me that the Bill is directed against one of the last great artists of society, against the salmon poacher. It is a monstrous thing that these two great machines of Government, both north and south. should get together to try and crush between the upper and nether millstones this last survival of true Tory private enterprise. It would not be fitting to let the Bill go through Second Reading casually like this without saying a brief word on behalf of the poacher.
I must admit I came here with some intention of speaking against the Bill and possibly even of opposing it in the Lobby because of its possible effect on the poachers. But I have been reflecting on the whole business of poaching. I am quite sure a number of hon. Members have experience of it. I am sure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) knows something about the thrill of going along the river in the gloaming, as I think they call it in Scotland, with one eye looking round the corner for the bailiff and the other eye looking for the swirl of fish in the water and the glint of a tail under a ledge of rock, the taking of the gaff out of the pocket and the struggle with a great fish as it leaps in the air.
Surely there are two elements in poaching. One is the element of danger—the fact that there is a bailiff round the corner, that one has to go home with a fish down the back of one's coat, with another coat over it, and one has to get past the local policeman and, with a bland air of innocence as one goes by, wish him a good night.
The other element is that it is necessary that there should be fish. Therefore, on sober reflection it is in the interest of the poacher that we should give this Bill a Second Reading. We must preserve the fish for him. We cannot allow lorry-loads of spivs to come across the Border or even across the sea from Scotland to take the fish out of the river. We must also preserve the element of danger, because if the business of poaching completely breaks down and anybody can get a fish it is not a sport any longer. In the hope that the Commission which it is proposed to be set up will be tolerant and reasonable in their attitude towards this last great artist of society, I am prepared on behalf of the poachers to give this Bill a Second Reading.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I think the whole House is glad that there is at least one Conservative Member who has not forgotten the origin of Toryism. As anyone who looks it up in an old dictionary will find out, the Tory was a species of Irish robber and it is very proper that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), should defend private enterprise in this way.
I do not know what experience hon. Members have had of lecturing in prisons. If they do have occasion to do so they will find that those who have the misfortune to be there are stout Conservatives. They always believe that anybody who is attacking private enterprise is attacking their source of wealth, and I can well appreciate why the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, takes the point of view he has expressed.
I thought it a pity that nobody on this side of the House got up to welcome this first measure of modest nationalisation introduced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It does not go far, but it introduces nationalisation into a new sphere. I do not think that even that would have tempted me to speak had it not been for

listening to five hon. Members from Northern Ireland speaking on the subject, none of whom mentioned the important reason for passing the Bill.
It is to do something for Derry, an area where there is more unemployment proportionately than in any other part of the country. I appreciate what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Wellwood), whose maiden speech we all welcomed and whom we welcome to this House. But I see he is already dropping into a political frame of mind. For years he was one of Ireland's distinguished civil servants. He would have said then, "That is another feather in the cap of the Ministry." He now says, "It is another feather in the cap of the Minister."
What we are up against is desperate poverty in the area where there is this fishery. It is a poverty due to the cutting off of Derry from its hinterland and from areas on which it previously depended for a market and for trade. The problem we are up against with regard to this Bill is not so much arranging for fishing to be done as arranging for the marketing of the fish and the proper dispersal of the fish in a situation where the river from which they are taken wanders from one country's territory to another's.
This is a kind of economic problem and I do not think facile speeches about the amusingness of the Irish will solve a problem which causes a great number of people to live in desperate poverty. All the time when we in this House are thinking of and dealing with people in that part of the world we should realise that we are thinking of and dealing with many people who have not been employed for some 20 years, and where shirt factories and the like are one by one closing down. It is against that background that the House should pass this Bill.

6.36 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On this occasion there has been so much agreement, including a belated but none the less importtant contribution and agreement from the poaching community conveyed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), that there is really nothing for me to do except first—and I am sure the House would wish me to do this—to congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Wellwood) on a maiden speech which the whole


House enjoyed. Secondly, I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends would like me to say a word not in contravention but rather in complement to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).
The hon. and learned Member referred to the origin of the name Tory as being that of an Irish robber. He did not go on to complete the history of the bestowal of the name. It was bestowed on those who refused to be deceived by the stories of Titus Oates and the Popish Plot. Speaking for my hon. and right hon. Friends, we take no shame that the origin of our party is that we were not taken in by the lies of knaves. In fact we are quite prepared to go on as a perpetual protest against such lies in the future. But where, oh where, is the border of order? If I have transgressed it, I make my most profound apologies.

Dr. Horace King: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman resumes his seat, in view of the comment made on the origin of the name Tory, will he also add from his immense legal experience some definition for the House of the difference between poaching and private enterprise?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Vosper.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. FRANK BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(POWER FOR THE TREASURY TO BORROW.)

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from "interest," to "out," in line 14.
The effect of the Amendment would be to delete from the Clause any reference to interest
not exceeding three pounds per cent. per annum, …

I am hopeful that the Financial Secretary will be induced to accept my Amendment, which I have worded very carefully in order to help him, and to show him how co-operative we can be when we are doing something more than usually reasonable. I have not proposed to delete the words "with interest." I propose to leave them in, as I think the Financial Secretary will then probably accept the Amendment.
In a Bill concerned expressly and exclusively with short-term borrowing, with loans which have to be repaid at the end of the financial year—that is to say, in this case, by 31st March, 1952—it is a most extraordinary and anomalous thing that there should be a reference to a rate of interest of 3 per cent. per annum. But it is not so anomalous as it used to be, because I find, on looking into the history of the Bill, that it is largely a matter of tradition and convention.
I do not want to blame the Financial Secretary or the Government for that, because, if I sought to do so, I should open myself to the retort that the Bill has been drafted in this way for many years. But the curious thing about this 3 per cent. interest is that it really does not mean anything. In loans of this kind there is no such thing as a rate of interest of 3 per cent. How could there be, when they are loans the currency of which could not be more than four months and will probably be less than three months? How could one have a rate of interest of 3 per cent. on such a short-term loan?
I find that for the past 71 years, strange as it may seem, believe it or not Mr. Bowles, the reference to 3 per cent. was not in the Bill, which was a recurring Bill brought in annually or more frequently than annually. The reference was not to 3 per cent., but to 5 per cent. per annum. I notice that the Financial Secretary indicates assent. I find that in February, 1941, when the Consolidated Fund Bill was before the House and when for many years the formula or, if I may so put it, the mumbo-jumbo had been 5 per cent. per annum, one of my hon. Friends who is no longer here moved an Amendment to take out 5 per cent. and substitute 2½ per cent.
That was while the war was on, and I suppose he was rather shocked by the idea that anybody should be paid 5 per cent. for lending money to the Government


when the country was fighting for its life. Indeed, he made that clear; and the then Chancellor, the late Sir Kingsley Wood, reassured Mr. Tinker and said he had no intention whatever of paying anybody 5 per cent. for any loan to the Government to enable the war to be carried on. The late Mr. Tinker—I am not sure whether he is "late"—who was a rather simple person in many ways—asked why 5 per cent. was mentioned in the Bill if there was no intention of paying anybody 5 per cent.
6.45 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave what I thought was a very weak and lame reply. I am perfectly certain that the present Financial Secretary, who has a reputation to make, is not going to make a weak and lame reply of that kind on this occasion. Sir Kingsley Wood then said:
The figure of 5 per cent.…is the ordinary stock form which, I understand, is always used."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1941; Vol. 368, c. 1381.]
There is a pretty kind of thing—"the ordinary stock form which, I understand, is always used. "But Sir Kingsley was very explicit. He said he had no intention whatever of paying 5 per cent.
I hope, hon. Members opposite will not oppose this Amendment and say, "We have always put in 5 per cent. It is true 5 per cent. is irrelevant and there has never been any 5 per cent., but because it has always been in, we should like to leave it." That may have seemed a good argument to the late Sir Kingsley Wood, but it did not take him more than 20 minutes' discussion in the Committee of those days to realise that he was in an indefensible position. And then he put a wonderful piece of bluff over the Committee. He said, in effect, "All right, I will take back the 5 per cent.; I will not insist on that any longer. I will not have the proposed 2½ per cent., but I will compromise on 3 per cent." Three is just as irrelevant as 5 per cent. It is just as meaningless in this context.
The reason I hope the Financial Secretary will give me this Amendment is that, if I may say so without presumption, the Financial Secretary, whatever his faults and whatever the wrongness of his political views, does use very accurate English. He is careful in the matter of words.

That is the only thing that he and I have in common. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who is sitting next to the Financial Secretary, is also interested in the use of words and I know that he will confirm that his colleague the Financial Secretary is meticulous in his choice of words. I put to the Financial Secretary that there is no more sense in leaving in 3 per cent. now than there was in the days of the late Sir Kingsley Wood in leaving in 5 per cent.
But that is not the end of the story. This little discussion evidently made some impression on the Members of the House of Commons in those days, notwithstanding their preoccupation in winning the war. In the following year, in August, 1942, my right hon. Friend the present Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) got busy on this, and put down an Amendment to the Consolidated Fund Bill to make it 2 per cent. instead of 3 per cent. He might just as well have made it 1½ per cent. He was answered not by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer but by no less a Minister than the present Leader of the House, who, in those days, was Financial Secretary. He made a valuable concession to the then Opposition. I only hope that the present Financial Secretary will be as candid on this occasion as his predecessor was then.
The present Leader of the House, in replying to my right hon. Friend, said that the sub-section
has nothing to do with medium or long-term loans. What this subsection refers to are … Ways and Means advances … by the Banking Department of the Bank of England which are day to day borrowings".
Then he gave the rate if interest—one half per cent. per annum.
Any ordinary person, having an ordinary sort of brain and not being given to tolerating non sequitur, would have thought that that was the prelude to a concession by the present Leader of the House, the then Financial Secretary. Anybody would have thought that he would have gone on to say, "Seeing that this Bill is concerned exclusively with borrowings at one-half of 1 per cent. from the Bank of England, and seeing that this has got nothing whatever to do with long-term or medium loans which might conceivably carry interest at 1 per cent., I will accept the Amendment of


the right hon. Member for Ipswich and will make it 2 per cent. instead of 3 per cent." But he did not do that. He gave an extraordinary excuse for keeping this amazing, monstrous and, perhaps not fictitious but irrelevant, figure of 3 per cent. His excuse was this. I ought to quote him because he is the Leader of the House, and far be it from me to undermine his reputation. He said:
That figure of 5 per cent. had been in Consolidated Fund Bills for 71 years. As it bore no relationship at all to what, in fact is the cost of these Ways and Means Advances, my right hon. Friend accepted that in the circumstances of today 3 per cent. was perhaps a tidier sum"—
"perhaps a tidier sum."—
for the reason that it is the maximum at which we have been borrowing on long and medium terms"—
That is to say, the terms which had nothing to do with the Bill—
and therefore, it was most unlikely ever to be reached for this type of borrowing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1951; Vol. 382, cc. 1067–68.]
If ever there was a non sequitur, that was one. If ever there was muddleheaded thinking, that certainly was it. People like me are inclined to be suspicious where anything to do with high finance is concerned. I have been suspicious about it for the last 25 years. Nothing that I hear from the Front Bench mitigates my suspicions. Why was this 3 per cent. put in? The Financial Secretary, who is a clear-thinking person, will admit that the Bill is not concerned with long or medium term borrowing. If he says it is, I shall quote his words of last Friday in the Second Reading, when he said:
The borrowings authorised by this Bill are Ways and Means borrowings, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that though, technically, power is taken in an emergency to use the Treasury Bill system of borrowing, in fact this borrowing, which represents a very small proportion of Government borrowing, is effected in the first place by loans from balances available to the other Departments of State, and secondly, if necessary, from the Bank."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1951; Vol. 494, c. 1986.]
—Bank with a capital "B", meaning the Bank of England.
He admitted, in the course of the Second Reading debate on Friday, that the whole of this Bill from start to finish is concerned with short-term loans. Having regard to that admission, why does he now want to bring in 3 per cent.?
I am sure he does not, and I feel confident that he is going to admit that "three" ought not to be there; either that, or he will give a wonderful explanation, much more convincing than that given by his hon. Friend in 1942, as to why three is left in. If he can, I shall be mighty interested in it.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Having added my name to the Amendment which has just been so forcefully moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith), there are one or two further observations that I should like to make. I was disappointed with the reply made by the Financial Secretary when the matter was raised on the Second Reading. I feel that he did not treat the point made by my hon. Friend with the seriousness or the attention it deserved.
The Financial Secretary said that we are only theoretically concerned in this Bill with the Treasury bill rate. That seems to lend force to the argument which has been presented by my hon. Friend. I interpret that as an admission that the insertion of the rate of interest in this Clause is theoretical. I would, however, say, on the other hand, that in view of the odd ideas on the subject of interest rates held by the present Administration, it may be more than a purely theoretical consideration or insertion that has been made.
The Financial Secretary went on to say that the argument, however interesting, did not relate very seriously to the subject matter of the Bill. I beg to differ. He put forward as an argument for the continuation of the conventional form of words, the fact that the same figure had been included in every Consolidated Fund Bill since 1942. That, of course, is so, but in my view the fact that something wrong has been going on for nearly 10 years is not a decisive argument for the perpetuation of that convention.
I was hoping that the Financial Secretary, being a new broom, would start sweeping up some of the cobwebs which he has inherited not only from the previous Labour Administration but from previous Conservative Administrations. I hope that he will treat the point which my hon. Friend and I are putting forward with rather more seriousness than he was disposed to show when the similar point was put forward on the Second Reading.
It is, of course, true to say that the Financial Secretary said that the points made by my hon. Friend would be considered. But that, of course, is a very vague statement which I am not prepared to accept unless he also says that in the Consolidated Fund Bill for next year, if he is still Financial Secretary, this form will no longer be followed, in which case I would seriously reconsider my own position and be disposed to advise my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.
Failing such an assurance, I would ask the Financial Secretary to take the bold course and make the concession that we are asking him to make. He will not lose anything by it. The figure of 3 per cent., even with the present Administration, is completely meaningless, as my hon. Friend has pointed out; and I hope that in these circumstances he will have no difficulty whatever in accepting the Amendment.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I listened with great interest to the two speeches which have been made in support of this Amendment, but I am bound to say that I find it a little difficult to relate the arguments adduced in favour of the Amendment with the terms of the Amendment itself. If hon. Members will look at the Bill they will see that if this Amendment were accepted the only effect would be to remove from the Bill the limit imposed upon the rate of interest at which the Government are authorised to borrow. That is the effect of the Amendment.
It is an unusual situation to find two hon. Members on the Opposition benches forcing on a shy and diffident Government powers for which that Government has not asked. But that is what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith), is, in fact, doing. I appreciate, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this Bench, the confidence which he shows in the present Administration in desiring to entrust it not only with greater powers than any of its predecessors since before 1870 have enjoyed, but powers which were not even asked for by its immediate predecessors. We feel that it is unnecessary, even with this display of confidence that the hon. Gentleman has shown in us, to remove the limits upon our powers which this Bill imposes.
The hon. Gentleman has said with great truth that this is short-term borrowing with which we are now concerned, and that the rate of interest on short-term borrowing of this sort is much below the 3 per cent. level. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that, and he is equally right in giving the history of this matter. I will take him back a little further. The rate before 1870 was £5 7s. 5d. per cent. It dropped to £5 in 1870, and it was reduced to 3 per cent. in 1941.
That is all true. But the object of having a figure of this sort in the Bill is this: it is to impose what my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade always calls "a ceiling"—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I never do.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —that is to say, an upward limit upon what can be done. It is desirable that some margin should be given to the Government in respect of its borrowing in case some grave emergency arises.
7.0 p.m.
It is arguable that that figure should be higher than the 3 per cent. for which we ask, but we cannot go as far as the hon. Member and suggest that there should be no limit. Therefore, while I fully appreciate the force of the considerations which the hon. Gentleman has put forward in support of this Amendment, the very logic of those considerations makes it quite impossible to accept the terms of his Amendment.
I will say a few words, if I may, about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). I am sorry if, on Friday, in reply to a very considerable number of hon. Members, I did not reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, as fully as he thinks I should have done. I have had no such complaint from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, himself. Of course, I was right in saying then, as I say now, that we are only theoretically concerned, in connection with Ways and Means borrowing, with the Treasury bill rate. In point of fact, this method of borrowing has not been used for Ways and Means borrowing for a good many years and the fact that the


power is taken to borrow in this way is simply another part of the emergency provisions.
In these circumstances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his attempt to thrust upon the Government powers for which they do not ask and which they do not desire to exercise. I hope he will allow us to agree that the Committee shall insert a maximum percentage at which we can borrow in this way.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

PREAMBLE

The Chairman: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), in page 1, line 4, to leave out "cheerfully," is out of order.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. Sir Charles, I am the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and I am not expressing any surprise at all at your decision.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Norman Smith: The House is being asked to give the Bill a Third Reading, and I should like to express misgivings about certain of its contents. In particular, I would point out that Clause 2 (3) refers to what the Financial Secretary, I am glad to say with much diffidence, called "a ceiling" to the rate of interest of these repayments. I do not like the word "ceiling" any more than he does.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear.

Mr. Smith: I feel it is a great pity that this figure is retained in the Bill. The figure of £3 is such a nice, reasonable sort of sum; it is the kind of rate of interest with which ordinary men and women are very familiar in their every day lives. When they see £3 in a Bill they think it is reasonable, whereas I have a suspicion that it is put in not at all as an insurance against any Government
being rapacious at the expense of the taxpayers or over-generous at the expense of the money-lenders. I do not believe that is the case at all.
I believe this nice sum is put into the Bill to hide from the ordinary man or woman in the street the circumstance that there are such things as loans at a rate of interest of something less than one-half of 1 per cent., which circumstance has been concealed very successfully from most of the general public throughout the 26 or 27 years during which I have been interested in these things.
I am very much more worried, however, about Clause 2 (1), which contains a reference to Treasury bills. I think it is a great pity that this Bill should empower the Treasury to borrow by the issue of Treasury bills. It is a great pity for this reason. Perhaps I may refer to what the Financial Secretary said on Second Reading—and I will not quote him textually. He insisted that this Bill was concerned with very short term Ways and Means borrowing, either through Government Departments, or through the Bank, with a capital B, meaning the Bank of England.
From the way in which he placed his emphasis, I had a feeling that he wanted the House to believe that the Treasury would go to the Bank of England only if they could not get the money from the Departments. I am prepared to admit that it is a perfectly reasonable thing for the Treasury to use balances which are in the hands of other Government Departments. Those balances can, in fact, be very considerable, and nobody would quarrel with the Treasury using them. It is a very reasonable thing if, for any reason, the Treasury had to go outside the Departments, that they should go to the Bank of England for Ways and Means advances—I presume at one-half of 1 per cent. although it is the studied policy of the Treasury not to take the public or even this House into their confidence in a matter like that.
But I cannot see why the Treasury should be empowered to issue Treasury bills—that is to say, to go to the commercial banks and pay them a rate of interest which at least would be seven-eighths of 1 per cent. and might well be more. I know it is arguable that the Treasury bill method has a less inflation-


ary effect than the method of Ways and Means advances from the Bank of England; but in the context of the City of London as it now is, and the money market as it now functions, and the commercial banks as they now order their business, I doubt whether that argument about less inflation has any validity, because it is quite well known that the commercial banks are now working through a ratio of cash plus money market assets, on the one hand, against total deposits, on the other hand. Here is a fraction—the numerator of the fraction is cash plus money market assets and the denominator is total deposits. I would point out that Treasury bills are money market assets.
Why has this Clause been left in the Bill? I thought the explanation might possibly be found in what happened yesterday or the day before, when the commercial banks began to issue their returns for the month of November. Those returns show that their liquidity position has been affected very seriously indeed as a result of the funding operation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, and indeed carried out, last month, when he funded rather more than £1,000 million of Floating Debt—that is to say, more than one-sixth of the Floating Debt. By so doing, the Chancellor diminished the availability of bills, and by diminishing the availability of bills—in view of the fact that the numerator of the fraction on which the banks work is cash plus money market assets—he jeopardised the liquidity position of the banks.
I wonder whether this Clause is left in the Bill in order that the Government may come to the aid of the banks in circumstances such as those which are arising and which, in fact, have arisen, since that funding operation. I wonder whether the Clause is left in the Bill so that the Government may come to the aid of the banks, which are, of course, private money-lending institutions, to enable them to maintain their liquidity position—incidentally, by so doing, imposing upon the taxpayers the burden represented by the difference between seven-eighths of 1 per cent. interest on Treasury bills and one-half of 1 per cent., which I presume to be—and I am open to correction, because no one outside the Treasury knows—the rate of interest of Ways and Means advances.
If that is so, I have put my finger upon a very undesirable facet of our public life. The banks are privileged institutions, which alone can create credit. That is a prerogative which is denied to ordinary people—denied to people like myself, denied to forgers and coiners and criminals like Mr. Clarence Hatry. The banks are allowed to do that. Here we have something going through this House, almost on the nod, as a provision about Treasury bills in the Consolidated Fund Bill.
It is nearly 50 years since I was at Sunday school; but when I was there, in the county of Wiltshire, I remember the vicar of the parish giving us a lecture about certain people who would strain at gnats but were willing to swallow camels. I remember thinking what an extraordinary kind of person is a man who will strain at a gnat but quietly swallow a camels. It is only a little over six years since I first sat in the House, although I sat in the Press Gallery a good many years before that; and although I have been in the House for only a comparatively short time, I have observed that the House will challenge almost ferociously Measures which I would call of the order of gnats; and yet will accept, nodding, in a comatose sort of condition, gross propositions of this sort, which give a privilege to private money-making interests in the City of London—a privilege which, so far as I can see, cannot be justified by any sort of argument.
I shall not be guilty of straining at the gnat or swallowing a camel. I say what I have said on this Third Reading because I want to utter my protest at this privilege for the commercial banks being put through by the back door, by means of a Clause in the Consolidated Fund Bill, which very few hon. and right hon. Gentlemen profess to understand, but which gives the Treasury power to raise money on Treasury bills. I think that is an atrocious thing, which ought not to be allowed; and I propose that it shall not go through the House without being challenged.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith) always addresses the House on matters of this kind with sincerity and ability. I have a feeling, although I was not able to hear every word he used, that


the House may have reached a stage when it comprehends that he is making what I suspect is an important and effective point. I must say I have not had an opportunity of consulting Cruden's Concordance about his concluding remarks, but I think there is nothing in the Bible about passing a camel on the nod.
On these matters I can only volunteer my own experience. Whenever I approach my bank, and I frequently do, for an overdraft, and whenever my application is granted—which is frequently, surprising though it may seem—so far as I know, no Treasury Bills are issued by my bank; all they do is to obtain a further draft on the Bank of England, who themselves do not issue any Treasury bills in respect of this transaction, which as far as I am concerned is quite important.
I agree with the argument which I think my hon. Friend put that there appears to be no particular reason for this procedure. After all, an overdraft in these days is merely a technical transaction, a written item on one side of a book; and so far as I have heard, there is no very special justification for certain persons in the City of London receiving £22 million or £25 million or £30 million as a result of the transactions which we are completing today.
I rise, however, to speak on a much more important matter. I ventured, with many of my hon. Friends, to put down an Amendment to the Preamble on the Committee stage, which was not called—I think, if I may say so, for very excellent reasons, because we recognise that this has become part of the enacting formula of Bills relating to the Consolidated Fund, and a part not even put to the Committee to be passed.
I do not know how something becomes an enacting formula. So far as I can find out, nor does Erskine May. I do not know if possibly anyone in this House could give any advice on that point. I should imagine that the real reason is something of the sort of which we have had a very recent instance—that the Government Chief Whip forgot about it, and that the House found that it had accepted a procedure for which there was no constitutional justification. Nor, indeed, any historical justification because the enacting formulae for some centuries do not appear to have borne very much

relation to the particular problems being faced.
We find in the days of Queen Anne that it was being voted not only cheer, fully but unanimously. I am bound to say that if my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, had been present in the days of Queen Anne he would have been regarded quite obviously as anachronistic and euphemistic. I looked back to the days of Charles I and sought to find a formula that was relevant, and the only relevant one I could find was:
An Act to prevent inconveniences which may happen—
upon the long intermission of Parliament. That was passed in 1640 and shows that our problems have not altered very much. That was a matter of 13 years and now it is a matter of 13 weeks, but the problem is the same and the difficulties have not really decreased.
But I am putting this argument very seriously. Is it right that we should deceive His Majesty on this matter? Is there really in the House any such feeling that we have cheerfully granted this vast sum, most of it lost on purchases over which we have no control? I could pursue the historical argument, but I shall not because I do not want to say any word that would hurt anyone's feelings, but is it right to deceive the Crown on a matter of this kind? To do so can have very serious consequences.
Is the House seriously saying to the Crown that we are cheerful about these things? Is it seriously to be supposed that each of us says, "When I get my demand note for Income Tax or Surtax I cheerfully call up the stairs to my wife and say, 'They are asking me for a bit more this year. Let's celebrate."?
In fact, there is already alarm and despondency in the country. Only a few days ago we had petitions from Horn-church, Northampton and Oldham, West, protesting about the state of the country. They were petitions from Essex, the Midlands and Lancashire, and we could not have a more diverse example of the sort of feeling that exists. I observed last week that in another place, in the only Division they have had in the present Session, there were only just over 60 Members. Whatever the truth of the fact may be anyone who knows the sense of sacrifice to public service of Members


of another place will realise that only poverty could have kept them away, and there were 790 absentees—although, of course, since 1911 we know that they have no right to overrule a Bill of this sort, or of enacting a formula to this particular Bill.
I think the House will have to consider in the present Session whether we can go on accepting Bills which start off in terms which are clearly terms to deceive and clearly are not terms that express what His Majesty's subjects feel about this matter at all. If hon. Members opposite have been to speak to their constituents about pay as you earn they must have found this to be true. I am not speaking of the efforts of the civil servants charged with the melancholy duty of having to collect tax from us. I have always been received by them with every courtesy, although I believe they still remember against me certain frivolous letters I wrote to them when a sergeant in the Army asking whether I was expected both to fight the war and pay for it. However, that is past now.
I am sure that most of them at some time must have felt a certain amount of remorse when sending the 10-day notice, just as those who received them must have done so, and I am sure that an officer of the Inland Revenue must have felt some mortification on behalf of his wife and children if and when he found it necessary to post to himself a 10-day notice, and must have had a moment of hesitation and reluctance, and wondered whether it could not be delayed by a few days, even though he realised that it was important that His Majesty should be supplied with the necessary revenue.
My hon. Friends and I who had put down the Amendment do not wish to take His Majesty's Government by surprise in this matter, and we would not wish to press this matter unduly at this moment, but we shall undoubtedly, on other Consolidated Fund Bills, have to ask them to consider this important matter, and consider whether we cannot devise a formula much more in accordance with the spirit of the day, and more reflective of the alarm and despondency, some expression of which we have seen during the last few weeks.

7.20 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), has reminded me of an old radio character, Mrs. Mopp, who constantly said that it was "being so cheerful as kept her going"; and we hope that this lack of cheerfulness will not add to the alarm and despondency about which he has spoken. Among our greatest national assets must be included the vigilance of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith), on these occasions, and the unending supply of erudition that emanates from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West. I do hope that the Financial Secretary will take heed of what has been said in this debate. I should like for a few moments to re-inforce a few things that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, has said.
It was, I think, made clear on Second Reading that it is now almost common ground that when the banks create additional deposits which are in effect money they are really doing it through notes. In those circumstances, I think it is true to say that the banks are in a very special and privileged position. It may be necessary for a variety of reasons for the Government in this Bill to borrow this money by the issue of Treasury bills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, is of the opinion that the Government should be able to borrow at short-term from the banks at no rate of interest at all. In this connection I would draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to what was said by no less eminent a person than my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who speaks on these matters with all the authority that appertains to an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer.
These are the words he used:
I do hold the view that there is no reason why, in a uniform banking system, the Government should be required to pay more than the additional costs incurred by the banking system as a result of their taking up the Treasury bills in question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1951; Vol. 494. c. 1980.]
That surely is a reasonable argument to put forward that would help to reduce the rate of interest that the Government are having to pay on Treasury bills to an even smaller figure than whatever is the rate at the moment.

Mr. Norman Smith: One-eighth of 1 per cent.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: One-eighth of 1 per cent., says my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South. It would be even less than that figure if the only cost charged to the Treasury were the additional cost incurred by the banking system, because the additional cost incurred by the banking system in connection with Treasury bills is limited to the actual cost of the clerical labour involved in making the necessary entries into the books of account that have to be kept.
Surely, in those circumstances, and in view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, said, it will not be too much to expect the present Administration, seeking to economise in every direction, to consult with the joint stock banks in this matter. I am quite sure, regardless of our general views on the subject of the City of London and of the joint stock banks system in general, that it would be found, particularly with a Conservative Administration in power, that the directors of the joint stock banks would be only too happy to co-operate with the Government in ensuring that, so far as the cost of Treasury bills is concerned, the interest rate should be limited to the actual additional costs that the banking system incurs.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider this part of the argument which has been raised in the course of the debate on this Bill. This issue has not been raised by hon. Members who could perhaps be dismissed by the Financial Secretary as irresponsible back benchers. The words I have quoted represent the considered view of an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to that extent I hope that they will not be overlooked.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall endeavour to reply to the observations which have been made by the three hon. Members who have taken part in this Third Reading debate. I think that I can begin by re-assuring the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Norman Smith). He was very perturbed that he was being made to swallow a camel—the camel of the Treasury bill rate. I can assure him that so far as this Bill is concerned, it is a very remote possibility that he will be compelled to absorb that particular form of nutrition.
As I said on Second Reading, the provision in the Bill relating to Ways and Means borrowing to be effected by Treasury bills is purely an emergency provision, and it is not the intention, nor, indeed, has it been the practice for many years, for borrowing for this purpose to be effected by Treasury bills at all. Therefore, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that if there is any question of his being forced to absorb a camel this afternoon that is more likely to be the responsibility of the Kitchen Committee of the House than it is of the promoters of this Bill.
I should explain perhaps once again why it is the intention of the Government to continue the practice adopted for this kind of borrowing. In the first place, resort is made to the balances standing to the accounts of the different Departments of State. That is obviously the most economic form of borrowing. In respect of many of them where there is no statutory investment arrangement, the borrowing is free of interest.
It is obviously an economic proposition which I should have thought would appeal to the hon. Gentleman. In default of sufficient funds being available in that way, resort is made to the Bank of England, and, in practice, these two sources of supply have been sufficient to meet the needs of this kind on borrowing for many years. Perhaps I should repeat, in order to make the position clear, that the provision in Clause 2 (1) of the Bill is merely to deal with some unforeseen contingency which, we hope, may not arise.
I would emphasise that point also in reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). Treasury bill borrowing in general has no effect in this direction. It has effect under the National Loans Act, 1939, and is only included here as an emergency provision. I should like to say a word if I may, without getting into trouble with the rules of order, with reference to a word in respect of which the hon. Gentleman sought to table a deleting Amendment in the enacting words of the Bill? The word is "cheerfully."
I should be sorry to see any cheerfulness being sought to be removed from any of our transactions. I realise, of course, that the hon. Gentleman intended a


serious point in what he said, and I will endeavour to deal with it in the same spirit. The word "cheerfully" first appeared, so far as we can trace, in these Bills in Chapter 17 of the Acts of the 57th year of his late Majesty King George III, and it has been a consistent practice, as I understand it, since then to include this adverb in the enacting words of similar provisions.

Mr. Hale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that was in one of His Majesty's lucid intervals? There is a Regency air about it. It does seem to me to affect the merits of the matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am bound to admit that there is a certain Regency air about the phrase. It is, perhaps, none the worse for that. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman really wants to make much of it. It seems to me perhaps not inappropriate that the characteristic which our people do share of cheerfulness in difficult times should be firmly and resolutely stated when we are faced with the difficult and disagreeable process of making money available for public purposes.
To the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton}—lest I seem to neglect his speech—may I say that what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, applies equally to his arguments? Whether there is force or not in what he said on the general question of interest rates, with particular reference to Treasury bills, is a matter which, I think, I should probably be out of order if I tried to pursue, because in this Measure we are really in practice not concerned with them. We are concerned with the type of borrowing to which I referred a few moments ago in reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South.
In the circumstances, as this is now the last stage of a somewhat, I will not say prolonged, but not entirely short process of implementing the decision which the House took some days ago in connection with four Supplementary Estimates, I hope that the House may be prepared to carry the matter to its logical and constitutional conclusion and give the Bill its Third Reading cheerfully.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Although we do not oppose the Bill, and although the Financial Secretary is perfectly correct in saying that it does not affect the general issue of Treasury bills, nevertheless, I do not think that we can finally allow it to pass without making one more emphatic protest against the Government's decision to raise the rate of interest on Treasury bills and to impose this extra heavy load on the taxpayer.
The sum involved is very large, and not merely do we not accept it cheerfully, but we do not accept it at all. It amounts to an addition, as the House knows, of £25 million a year gross and £16 million even when we have allowed for some return by way of Income Tax. That is far from a negligible sum. I believe, to take one example, that the whole school meals service cost £25 million a year. Therefore, we are imposing by this raising of the interest rate an extra sum, if we take the gross sum, equal to the whole cost of such an important social service as the school meals service.
We realise that the Government's professed intention, at any rate, in raising the interest rates is to secure the restriction and limitation of the expansion of credit. We believe that that can be achieved without this increase in interest rates. I will not argue our reasons for that at length, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), did so in the debate on Friday. But it does seem to us to throw rather a cynical light on the Government's professions of enthusiasm for economy in public expenditure that their very first act has been to make this increase—

Mr. Speaker: On the Second Reading of the Bill I did permit a fairly wide discussion of this matter of the interest rate, although it is not in the Bill at all. But on Third Reading I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself closely to the Bill as it is.

Mr. Jay: I was going no further than to assume that what was in order on the Second Reading would not be very far out of order on the Third Reading. I merely propose, in my concluding sentence, to say that we record again an


emphatic protest against this decision to raise the rate of interest on Treasury bills.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.36 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of the Bill is to enable me, as Minister of Transport, to grant exemptions from requirements as to crew accommodation imposed under the Merchant Shipping Acts of 1948 and 1950. Both of those Acts achieved a very smooth passage when they were launched on the not altogether untroubled waters of the last Parliament. That was due in part to the nature of the Acts, to the spirit of those who sail in British ships, and to the high degree of constructive consultation and agreement which had been reached by all concerned; and in part to the skilled pilotage of my predecessor in office, the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes).
This is my first venture in that difficult Parliamentary art of pilotage, and I only hope that I am able to keep this Bill equally clear of dangers, hidden and otherwise. I am not quite sure whether I have to class the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) as a hidden or as an "otherwise" danger, in view of the Motion which he has on the Paper.

Sir Richard Acland: I am certainly not hidden.

Mr. Maclay: Strange though it may seem, the powers which this Bill would give to the Minister of Transport, to grant exemptions is absolutely essential if the highest average standard of accommodation throughout British shipping is to be achieved. I can assure the House that this view is also held by unions and shipping companies alike. Both of whom, it is no exaggeration to say, are equally wholehearted in their desire to see the standards of comfort for those who go to sea in British ships equal to, if not better than, those of any other nation. I think it is safe to say that in a great many cases that is already the position.
The Bill is short, but it needs some technical explanation, and this I will try to give the House as briefly as I can. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, empowers the Minister, after consulting organisations representative of shipowners and seamen, to make regulations covering crew accommodation to be provided in British merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom. The Act of 1950 gives similar powers in respect of fishing boats registered in the United Kingdom. I think it would be convenient to hon. Members if I dealt first with the proposals of the Bill in relation to the 1948 Act.
The powers of that Act were obtained in order to give general effect to the provisions of the International Labour Convention concerning Crew Accommodation which were adopted at Seattle in 1946. It was not possible for the Government of the day to agree to ratify this Convention because it contained a number of unacceptable provisions. These provisions were, however, modified in the Convention on Crew Accommodation adopted by the International Labour Organisation at Geneva in 1949, a year after the passing of our own 1948 Act.
The Convention of 1949 also included a new provision permitting crew accommodation which, although not complying with the strict requirements of the Convention, was of an equal or better standard. The British Government's intention to ratify the 1949 Convention was announced in September, 1950, and steps were taken to draft the Regulations to be made under Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, to give effect to the requirements of the new International Convention.
These draft Regulations have now been agreed in principle with the National Maritime Board which, as hon. Members will be aware, is fully representative of the shipping industry, employers and unions alike. When made, the Regulations will lay down standards of crew accommodation based on the best modern practice. They will, in certain respects, provide for standards that are higher than those laid down in the Convention itself.
The Regulations will apply to all British merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members will appreciate that this means they will apply to a very great variety of ships, and that


it would not be practicable for every ship of every type, regardless of size and method of working, to be provided with crew accommodation conforming with all the requirements of the Regulations.
It may be asked why the provision in-eluded in Section 1 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, which enables the Minister to make different provisions in respect of different classes of ships, does not give him all the powers which are necessary. The explanation is that it is my aim, as the Minister of Transport, to set the standards of the Regulations for all the different classes of ships as high as is possible, but circumstances are bound to arise in which a particular ship will not be able to comply fully with all the requirements laid down for its class.
It is in such cases that I must have power to grant exemptions or to modify the application of the Regulations so far as I consider this necessary, and subject, of course, to such conditions as I feel should be imposed. If I did not have this power there would be the danger that a ship which was far ahead of other ships in relation to accommodation would be ruled out altogether.
The Regulations which have now been agreed in draft with the representatives of the owners and of the officers and men will set extremely high standards which will, in many respects, go beyond the provisions of the Convention, and will extend to ships which are outside the scope of the International Convention altogether. As regards the ships to which the Convention applies I am bound, of course, to see that in no case is a ship permitted to have accommodation lower than the standard of accommodation fixed by the Convention itself.
The 1949 Convention provided that, after consultation with the representatives of the owners and seafarers, crew accommodation might be permitted which did not strictly comply with the requirements of the Convention, provided always that the standard of accommodation on the ship was equal to or better than that laid down in the Convention. The purpose of this provision was, as hon. Members will appreciate, to ensure that experiments and developments in design were not hampered by the rigid application of the very detailed provisions of the convention.
The draft Regulations which have now been agreed with the owners and the officers and men are based on the assumption that I will have power to relax particular requirements in cases where there is good reason why these requirements cannot, or should not, be carried out for example, in respect of smaller ships, or in respect of ships that are engaged in particular trades, or ships which operate in particular climatic conditions.
The Bill enables me to attach conditions to any exemption I may make. To take a practical example: the requirements in the draft Regulations relating to merchant ships of 1,000 tons or over require separate mess rooms for petty officers of the deck department, for the petty officers of the engine room department, for other ratings of the deck department, and for other ratings of the engine room department, four separate mess rooms in all. The Bill will enable me to exercise my discretion by relaxing this requirement according to the circumstances of the case, and subject to any conditions which I may think should be imposed.
I could, for instance, exempt a ship from the full requirement on condition that separate mess rooms were provided for the petty officers and ratings irrespective of department, or possibly on condition that separate mess rooms were provided for the petty officers and ratings of each department. We might have the fantastic position arising on small ships, if I did not have these powers, that there would have to be a mess room provided for one man. Such a position might be very bad for the rest of the ship.
A similar position arises in respect of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1950, which deals with the crew accommodation in fishing boats. Because of the small size of these vessels and the peculiarities of their employment the need for powers to exempt vessels from the requirements of any Regulations made under the Act is as indispensable as in the case of merchant ships. The Regulations in respect of the crew accommodation in fishing boats have not been finally drafted, but I hope soon to be able to arrange for consultation with the fishing industry. In preparing these Regulations we are bearing fully in mind the recommendations of the Gowers Report.
The wording of the additional subsection which this Bill adds to Section I of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, and to Section I of the Act of 1950 is identical with the wording of Section 28 (1) of the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act, 1949, which gives me the same powers in relation to safety requirements on board ship as I now seek in respect of crew accommodation. The shipping industry, owners, officers and men, have all been consulted about this Bill, and they all agree that the Regulations which have now been agreed with them can only be effective if I have a discretion in their application.
It may seem a paradox to hon. Members, but without these powers of exemption it will be necessary to reduce the standards laid down for crew accommotion in the draft Regulations, particularly as regards those ships which do not come within the scope of the International Convention itself. The reason for this, as hon. Members will appreciate, is that it would not be practicable for some of our ships to comply with the full standards of the Regulations, as drafted and agreed, and if I had not the power to exempt those ships or relax the requirements in respect of them, I would have to reduce the standards required in the draft Regulations for the different classes of ships so that all ships in those classes could comply with them. There would be a dragging down instead of the lifting-up process at which we are aiming.
As I have already stated, the draft Regulations and the proposals contained in this Bill have been very fully discussed with, and agreed by, all sections of the shipping industry, and I am confident that, having heard this explanation of the reasons why these powers are necessary, the House will agree that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.
I hope the hon. Baronet, the Member for Gravesend will realise that the reason why he is seeking to reject the Bill is far from the minds of anybody responsible for this Bill.

Mr. Percy Collick: What is the extreme urgency of this Measure, because the Bill was only laid before the House on Wednesday last and was not available in the Vote Office up till Friday? It was not until Friday that we were able to see what was in the Bill, and I suggest it is quite unfair to the House

of Commons that the Second Reading of the Bill is being taken today when the Bill was only available on Friday.

Mr. Maclay: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern and I regret the urgency. However, ships are being planned and some are being built. The Regulations are ready, and until we get this Bill we cannot go ahead the way we want to. It is very desirable to get this Bill through, if we can, before the House rises on Friday.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Barnes: In moving the Second Reading the Minister of Transport referred to the fortunate position that I was in in having the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House when securing the passage of the 1948, 1949 and 1950 Merchant Shipping Acts. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to pay some tribute to me, but my modesty precludes me from accepting his compliments. It really springs from the second point that he made—that in the post-war period ship-owners, officers and the seamen's unions of this country have developed a very wise and far-sighted policy of industrial co-operation.

Colonel L. Ropner: Why does the right hon. Gentleman refer to the post-war period only? It was equally true during the war and the years between the wars.

Mr. Barnes: I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member, but I do not see that we need to introduce a note of discord on this Bill. If the hon. and gallant Member thinks back and is of opinion that conditions were satisfactory he is entitled to that view.
During the war the relationships between the Minister of Transport and the shipping industry of this country were, naturally, very intimate and confidential. It is a very gratifying situation that, after the war, all sides of the shipping industry have co-operated most closely with the Ministry of Transport with very beneficial results. It has enabled Parliament by agreement to pay its debt to the shipping industry, because there is a deep sense of gratitude and appreciation among the people for the service which the Merchant Navy gives to our nation in times of war and in


times of peace. In the five or six years that have passed since the war, the enormous losses which the Merchant Navy endured during the war—some 10 million to 12 million tons of shipping—have been replaced. The strength of the contribution to our economic life which the shipping industry gives has been fully restored in that short period. That is a fact which demands from the House the most sympathetic consideration for any Measure that is designed to strengthen the industry and particularly to raise the standard of service and conditions for the men who go down to the sea in ships.
The Measure before us this evening is a modest one, but, nevertheless, it rounds off the Acts of 1948 and 1950, one applying to the Merchant Navy and the other to the fishing industry. When the 1948 Act was being introduced I explained that, whilst the Government were able to ratify the four Conventions dealing with food and catering services, able seamen's certification, ships' cooks and social security, we were not able at that time to ratify the Convention dealing with crew accommodation. In the intervening period negotiations have taken place that will now enable the Government to ratify that Convention.
I should like whoever replies to the debate to emphasise again the assurance that has been running through the whole of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The wording of this provision enables the Minister to exempt any ships or classes of ships, and that conveys to those who are not familiar with the problem that it is a let-out for some class or group of ships which may not be conforming to the standard which Parliament has insisted should be provided. I know that that has never been the purpose behind the consideration of these problems. If anything, the type of ship which is likely to be included represents a standard of crew accommodation above the average.
In matters of this kind, when our chief concern is to establish and improve the general standard of working conditions, it is essential that we do not make the standardised conditions so rigid, comprehensive and complete that we rule out the creative type of enterprise which is always seeking to go one better. Although I am not technically knowledgeable upon

shipping construction matters, I have nevertheless been able to observe the very considerable advance which has taken place in crew accommodation and facilities in the new type of construction which has been coming from our shipbuilding yards in the post-war period.
Owing to the enterprise and initiative which British shipowners must always display if they are to keep their competitive position in the grave and complex state of world shipping, we are bound in the very nature of things to develop specialist ships from time to time. The two Queens represent a type of ship which does not come within any class of shipping because no other nation in the world has equivalent vessels.
My view is that in all these matters it is in the interests of labour conditions that the type of owner, employer, business or organisation which has a creative inclination and desires to improve upon the prevailing generous standard should have scope for so doing and should not be unduly hampered and restricted. It is that type of owner or organisation which eventually raises the standard and enables Parliament to see that it can be done and to apply it to the less efficient units in industry.
Another case which comes very clearly to my mind is the type of ship which Mr. Edmund Watts, of Watts, Watts and Company, has recently had constructed in this country. It was a most novel type of construction representing in some directions revolutionary ideas in crew accommodation. It was difficult for the Ministry of Transport at once to accomodate themselves in their regulations and conditions to that type of ship, but this shipowner has always taken a very keen interest in welfare matters affecting seamen, and a provision of this kind enables the Minister to deal with a problem of that character.
It is not my practice unduly to delay proceedings if I agree with the proposal put before us. I would, therefore, merely add that this Measure, completes and rounds off the Act of 1948, for which the Opposition were responsible, and that they were proud and privileged to be able to introduce it into Parliament. That Act received the support of hon. Members on all sides of the House, and tonight I am gratified to be able to respond and to continue the very desirable practice of acknowledging the nations' debt to the Merchant Navy.

8.0 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I have listened with great care and attention to the Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), and in view, among other things, of the unanimity expressed between the two Front Benches I do not rise here and now to move the Amendment which I have put on the Order Paper for the rejection of the Bill, largely in order that I might be, as the Minister said, a disclosed and not a hidden obstacle.
On an occasion like this we have the right to ask one or two questions and to raise one or two points which we think ought to be brought to the attention of the House and of a wider public before such a Bill as this obtains its Second Reading. If we do not get satisfaction, I conceive that I still have the right formally to move the Amendment. If not, we have the remedy of simply voting against the Second Reading, but, in view of the high degree of co-operation which has been shown between the two sides of the House and that which has been described as taking place between the Government and both sides of the industry, I very much hope it will not come to that.
I am glad to hear—as I am sure are all hon. Members who did not know it already—that all the Regulations contained in this group of Measures are administered not by the Minister taking decisions entirely on his own but by the Minister in consultation with both sides of industry, and I feel sure that while that continues they are likely to be administered in a reasonable and liberal way. I understand the argument that elasticity is needed and that power to grant exceptions may indeed be something which we need for the very purpose of raising the general standards, but, of course, all the very satisfactory things about which we have been told tonight do not in any way appear in the Bill itself.
As the House sees it, the Bill gives the Minister power to make any exemptions to any of the Regulations for any ships or for any class of ship; and we must remember that at some future time we might not have a Minister so reasonable as the present Minister, nor, I think, do the exceptions which the Minister and his successors may make come before the House.

Mr. Maclay: I hate to suggest it, but if the hon. Baronet will carefully study the original Acts of 1948 and 1950 he will find that they contain a lot of safeguards. After all, the Bill merely amends the Acts of 1948 and 1950. If the hon. Baronet looks in those Acts he will find that practically all the safeguards are there.

Sir R. Acland: That may be true, but the Bill gives the Minister power to exempt any ships, or any class of ships, from any of these requirements. In the words which I put on the Order Paper, to give an indication of the sort of point I want to raise, I state—and I do not see how it can be denied—that this gives to a Minister power to grant to shipowners concessions which will relieve them of financial obligations.
I believe I am right in saying that from time to time it has been a quite traditional procedure of the House that when Bills of this kind, which can give such financial concessions to companies, come before the House, we have a right to examine whether the time is appropriate to make such concessions or whether there are any facts which should, at least, make us pause and ask for an explanation or comment before these powers are finally granted by the House.
It seems to me that what has recently been happening—it may not be to all, but, at any rate, to some—shipping freight rates is a fact which might make the House pause now and ask for an explanation or for assurances—

Commander Harry Pursey: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the benefit of future speakers, as to what shipping rates and freights have to do with the Bill? I think everybody would agree that the Bill is little more than a drafting Amendment. It applies simply to a subsection of an Act, and it relates merely to crew accommodation. The issue can be narrowed down still further, because it deals with the exemption of certain ships, which have been specified by the Minister with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes). I submit that any question of profits, freights, or anything of that nature, is entirely out of order on this very limited Bill.

Sir R. Acland: Further to that point of order. Before you give your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that I took pains to seek advice about this point before putting an Amendment on the Paper. I was assured—by somebody who, of course, did not know the merits of the facts that I wanted to raise, but simply as a matter of form and formula—that the point I wanted to raise, and the way in which I wanted to raise it, was unexceptionable, in that the Bill enables a Minister to give concessions to companies and that it is proper for the House, before granting such concessions, which would relieve companies of financial obligations, to ask questions as to whether it is necessary or right and appropriate at this moment to grant concessions of this kind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin. Morris): I understand that an arrangement of that sort was made, but I hope that the hon. Baronet will not carry the discussions into too wide a field.

Sir R. Acland: I quite understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that if I were to give innumerable examples of freight rates, you would very properly have something to say.

Mr. Maclay: Perhaps I might be able to help the hon. Baronet. It is extremely difficult to visualise more than the most exceptional cases where the use of these powers of exemption would relieve any shipping companies of any expenditure at all.

Sir R. Acland: I quite imagine that the exemptions which the right hon. Gentleman now has in mind, or the exemptions which, at some future time, he could persuade the organised interests in the industry to accept, might not exempt shipping companies from any very large financial obligation. That, however, is not in the Bill.

Commander Pursey: It is in the Act, but my hon. Friend does not understand that.

Sir R. Acland: We are not discussing the Act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is not in the Bill, it would not be in order to discuss it, but I understand that there was an arrangement, in view of the Amendment, which the hon. Baronet is not moving, that he might go a little wide; but I hope he does not go too far.

Colonel Ropner: Further to that point of order. Would you elucidate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the information of the House, what exactly you mean when you say that an arrangement has been made? I do not think that any of us on this side know anything about it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot go any further than that at this stage.

Mr. Barnett Janner: The usual channels.

Sir R. Acland: I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you and the House will allow me to give one example, which I choose from the West African trade, because that is a part of the world in which I am extremely interested. I choose it from timber, because whereas other trades—say the trade in cocoa—could not be stopped, even by a ten-fold increase of freight rates, because those rates would still be so small in relation to the total value of the crop, in timber we are dealing with something where there is real danger that a considerable part of the trade could be actually closed down.
The pre-war freight rate for timber was about 42s. 6d. per ton. By the end of the war, it was 83s., or an increase of 100 per cent., which was not very different from the general increase in the price levels of many things which took place during the war years. By April, 1951, it had gone up to 165s., which is a further 100 per cent., and by September, 1951, it had gone up to 256s., which is another 60 per cent. increase. Thus, there has been a three-fold increase since 1946, and a six-fold increase since 1939. There may be some explanation of these facts; there may be circumstances outside the power of the Government. If so, the House should be entitled to hear of these things.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Baronet may indeed—as, in fact, he has done—raise the general, abstract question, but I think that when he goes into these details he is going very far beyond it.

Sir R. Acland: There is another thing, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which needs a little explanation, namely, that these increases in shipping rates are by no means universal all over the world. For example, the present rates to East Africa are actually cheaper, not only per mile—the distance is much longer—but absolutely


cheaper than to West Africa. I think it would be fair, as I am making this point, which may seem to be a criticism of all shipping lines, to say that, as far as I am able to understand the matter, the regular lines are to some extent being driven by circumstances outside their control.
That is to say, the regular lines do not at the moment have enough ships to lift the whole of the freight which is coming forward for carriage from West Africa to this country and to other parts of the world. They therefore have to charter other ships, and to meet the exceptionally high charter rates they have to charge these steeply rising prices in order to average out between their own costs—which, I am informed, have not risen anything like as much as have these charges—and the even more than proportionately increased costs which they have to pay when they have to charter ships.
It seems to me, therefore, that there are facts in relation to shipping in general at which we are entitled to look, and which, without, I hope, having taken up too much time, I am entitled to ask the House to examine, before we pass the Bill. Although, I repeat, I accept the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman as to the way in which he personally intends to operate it, the Bill, nevertheless, in form, grants concessions to existing shipping companies which, or some of which, on the face of it, are behaving in a way which gives rise to anxieties in the minds of the general public, of traders, and, of course, of people in West Africa and in other places from and to which these freight rates have to be paid, as to whether their trade or some part of it is to be strangled by what has happened.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, being the Minister in charge of transport, will see whether privately owned transport can hold down its freight increases somewhere near the very modest increases in freight rates which have been imposed by nationalised transport. The Minister grimaces at me for saying this, but the freight increases to which I have drawn attention are, as he must know, vastly greater in proportion than those which have been imposed by nationalised transport undertakings. To cut short those who would like to raise points of order, I end by saying that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see what can be done.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: After listening to the honeyed words of the skilled pilots who are steering the Bill through the House, we are completely disarmed in this matter. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) is not moving his Amendment but, since my name is on the Order Paper, I wish to say a few words about it.
It is quite obvious that the Bill is another example of the legacies left to this Government by their predecessors; like the Japanese Peace Treaty, a foundling left on the doorstep, bearing the mental image of the former Minister. However, reading Clause 1 we find it somewhat sinister. We see:
The Minister may exempt any ships or classes of ships from any requirements of regulations made under this section, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.
On the surface that looks sinister, and I hope that what I am about to say will not invoke the ire of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), who may deliver a broadside on us later.
Since putting down this Amendment I have been happy to consult the national organiser of the National Union of Seamen and we are assured, as we have been assured at the Despatch Box, that there is nothing to be feared in this Clause. Even so, we want an assurance by the Minister that he will exert all his efforts to keep up the standards of all out ships.
In the past terms such as "coffin ships" have been used; those days have long since gone, but it is most important, not merely for men serving in those ships, but for the standing and prestige of this nation, that we should have the highest possible standards in our ships. I say that with all sincerity, although I do not represent a shipping division.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend, talked of the African shipping lines making money and about the high freight charges. They are high. He gave figures, which I shall not repeat. There is no doubt that the shipping lines are making quite a deal of money. We all like to make money, but I say to the shipping lines that if they are making money, as undoubtedly they are—we have only to look at the financial columns


of the morning papers to see that—let them share it with the men who go down to the seas in ships and let us have decent accommodation in those ships.
Although we have these assurances about the lack of any hidden motive in these Clauses—and I accept them in all sincerity—I ask the Minister to be on his guard in this matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is not the Minister's assurance, but what is in the Bill that matters.

Mr. Johnson: I am perfectly happy at this stage to accept the assurance of the Minister as I would have been of my own Minister in the last Government.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Some of us remember several experiences of this kind, for example, on the Anomalies Act, when from the Despatch Box we were given an undertaking that it would be administered in a certain way but workpeople throughout the country know how that was administered afterwards.

Mr. Johnson: The proof of the pudding is in the eating and when members of the National Union of Seamen, with whom I have spoken—people like Mr. Percy Knight—say that on their side of the fence they can accept the word of the Minister in this instance, I am perfectly happy to accept the assurance. Therefore, I associate myself with the hon. Baronet in saying that we shall not press the Amendment.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I confess that when I read the words of this Bill, I, like some of my hon. Friends, was very much disturbed. Not being a lawyer, I read the words as they are written and came to the conclusion that this was a very dangerous Bill. I consulted my union head office, as they are very interested in the shipping industry, particularly on the fishing side, and I discovered—I hope the Minister will note this—that they had not been consulted in the drafting of the Regulations. But I discovered afterwards that they were referring to the fishing Regulations.
Having heard the explanation of the Minister, and having made a few inquiries during the afternoon, I am much less worried as to how this Bill will operate.
I see quite clearly the necessity for some flexibility in the operation of the Regulations.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), while of course it is never safe entirely to trust what is said at the Despatch Box, especially if there happens to be a change of Government, or change of Minister, I am quite confident that these Regulations, which have been agreed with the National Union of Seamen and the shipowners cannot be altered without the seamen having something very strong to say about it; and I believe they will see that any attempt to reduce the standard of crew accommodation by using these Clauses will be very vigorously resisted and, I believe, with success.
I understand that the Regulations are not yet fully drafted, and I believe I shall be pushing at an open door if I say that I hope the Minister will make quite sure that the union representing fishermen is fully consulted before the final conclusions are reached about these Regulations as they affect fishing vessels. It has always appeared to me that there is particular necessity for protecting the conditions of crews of fishing vessels. I admit that it is much more difficult, but such vessels are much more uncomfortable to work in, especially if there is rough weather. It is proper therefore that we should try to get the best of the internationally agreed Regulations, and better still, if we can, put them into operation in fishing vessels.
I believe the Minister is prepared to try to reach that very desirable state. All I would ask is that he will give a clear undertaking that, just as in connection with the normal shipping trade the unions representing the men have been consulted, so, in connection with fishing vessels, the Transport and General Workers' Union will be consulted before the final drafts are concluded. On that undertaking being given, I do not see that there should be any opposition to this Bill at this time, and I have pleasure in supporting it.

8.26 p.m.

Colonel L. Ropner: This has been a very friendly debate, and I do not desire to raise the temperature. But I propose to return to the remarks made by the former Minister of Transport. I do not think he should have


said that the good relations in the shipping industry dated from the termination of hostilities of the last war. I have had something to do with the shipping industry for more years than I care to count, and I can assure the House that ever since the time immediately following World War One, which is the date I entered the industry, relations between employers and employed in the shipping industry have been of a most friendly and cordial nature.
I do not deny that difficult days were experienced, but those difficulties were shared in a friendly spirit by owners and by seamen. At no time did the relationship within the industry deteriorate because of the difficulties; and one of the matters in which in a small way I take some pride is that all my life I have been engaged in an industry where relations between employers and employed have been so good.
The Minister was completely right when he said that the National Maritime Board had been consulted before the introduction of this small Bill. For the information of hon. Members who do not know that such is the case, I would mention that the National Maritime Board is a joint organisation composed of shipowners and of seafarers. Not only was the National Maritime Board consulted, but I know I speak the truth when I say that all the members of the Board welcome the provisions of this Bill. Speaking, I am sure, for both owners and seafarers I can say that we want to reach the moment when the provisions of the 1948 Act can be implemented.

Mr. S. S. Awbery: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member that there is nothing in the Bill now before us regarding the National Maritime Board? All that the law says is that the Minister may make exemptions in respect of certain conditions. There is nothing about consultation with the Board.

Colonel Ropner: I do not know what point the hon. Member is trying to make. All I was saying was that the national body which represents shipowners and seafarers had been consulted, and I should have thought he would have been glad to hear that.

Mr. Awbery: The point I was trying to make is that even if in the past con-

sultation has taken place with the Board. there is nothing in this Bill which indicates that in the future the Minister must or will consult with the National Maritime Board.

Colonel Ropner: I am not saying that there is. I am saying that consultation has taken place and that both sides which are represented on the National Maritime Board welcome the provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) had better read the 1948 Act, the 1950 Act and this Bill, and he will then understand the machinery which those Acts and the Bill set up for consultation between the Minister and representatives of both sides of the industry.
Both sides of the industry welcome this Bill because at present under Section 1 of the 1948 Act no allowances are made for exemption within classes of ships. Therefore whole classes of shipping are or would be excluded from the provisions of the Act. By allowing exemption, which this little Bill seeks to do, whole classes of vessels can be brought within the provisions of the original Act. Speaking, as I think I may, not only for the shipowners, but for both sides of the industry, I express the hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. S. S. Awbery: I would go back to the point that the Bill states the power of the Minister of Transport to exempt from requirements as to crew accommodation. This is a two-Clause Bill and it appears to me to give too much power to an individual. Only a faultless man should receive such power and as there are no faultless men nobody should be given such power.
In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) I would say that I have read the 1948 Act and the 1950 Act. Section 1 of the 1948 Act states that after consultation with the owners and with the unions the Minister shall make Regulations respecting crew accommodation to be provided in specified classes of ships. He may prescribe the minimum space for sleeping accommodation and recommend and regulate the position of the quarters of the crew and the store rooms, and prohibit the use of these quarters for any other purpose.
The Bill before us now suggests that after that Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1948, there shall be inserted:
The Minister may exempt any ships or classes of ships from"—
the requirements of the Regulations. Section 1 of the Act says he shall consult the Maritime Board and the union of the men and make Regulations, and it appears to me that in this subsection we are giving the Minister power to exempt ships from the Regulations made under Section 1 of the Act.
The present Minister of Transport understands shipping. He has been connected with shipping for many years. But who knows who his successor may be? He may not know the stem from the stern of a ship or the port from the starboard side. Still he is the man who will be called upon to make Regulations so far as the quarters of the crew are concerned.
Many fights have taken place in this Chamber over accommodation for seamen, and it appears to me now that to take Regulations out of an Act of Parliament and place them in the hands of an individual is a retrogressive step. The Minister stated that he was anxious to get the Bill through Parliament soon, as ships now under construction could not be proceeded with. The inference which I draw from that is that there is certain accommodation to be provided in the ships now under construction which, if this Bill is passed, the Minister will exempt from its provisions.

Mr. Maclay: The point is that the Regulations which are to be laid before Parliament are already in draft, and have been agreed by the unions and the employers. It is very important to get these Regulations agreed. If we do not get them agreed before we apply the Regulations difficulties may arise in the construction of certain types of ships. This is a very technical subject, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I do not think that, without making another speech, I can go any further.

Mr. Awbery: These Regulations could be put into operation without this Bill. Section 1 of the 1948 Act provides that, after consultation with the owners and the unions, the Minister may make Regu-

lations respecting crews' accommodation. There is, therefore, no need for this amending Bill. The Regulations could be put into effect. What I was trying to establish was what, if we have to pass a Bill so that new accommodation may be provided in ships, is to happen after the ships have been constructed and the Regulations are already made? Then, we shall have to have the ships put back into dock and the accommodation altered at great expense to the owners.
I suggest that the wisest thing to do, in the interests of the shipowners, is to put the Regulations into the Bill, so that, when shipping is constructed, it will be constructed according to the Regulations, and there will be no need for an alterations afterwards. The Bill gives the Minister very great powers indeed, and I am hoping that Parliament will not agree to giving the Minister such powers as may be used in an autocratic way. I am not suggesting that the present Minister will use them in that way, because he knows the shipping industry, but there are men who would use this power autocratically to the disadvantage of the men who go down to the sea in ships.

8.38 p.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: As I happen to be following the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), I must link up the debate with his speech, but all I wish to say to him is that he was barking up the wrong tree. He has made a speech which should have been made during the debate on the principal Act.

Mr. Awbery: I had not the opportunity then.

Commander Pursey: Unlike a lot of hon. Members taking part in this debate, I happen to have been at sea for 30 years, and, secondly, for over six years I have had the honour of representing in this House East Hull, which includes the main docks of the third port of this country. So I hope that I have some slight knowledge of shipping.
Originally, I had no intention of intervening in this debate until I heard the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). The whole of that part of his speech which dealt with the Bill before the House—and it was only like a tiny drop in the ocean, if I may say that without casting


any reflection on the Chair—obviously displayed ignorance of the main Act, and was largely nonsense. As in the case of the last speech to which we have listened, I have no recollection of the hon. Members concerned ever taking any part in shipping matters, either publicly in this House or privately among their party colleagues who are interested in shipping.
There can be no question of my criticising the hon. Baronet adversely when I warned him and told him before the debate that it was obvious from the Amendment which he had placed on the Order Paper that he did not understand the sharp end of a ship from the blunt end and would have no knowledge of the difference between the deck and the keels. Moreover, his Amendment is another example of self-appointed experts barging in—and nautical people will know what barging in means—on a subject on which they know little or nothing. In fact, I advise him to find an hon. Member from the other side of the House, pair with him, go home and forget all about it.
The Minister, in presenting the Bill to the House, explained the reasons for it, and it is no part of my duty to answer the questions which were raised from this side of the House. I shall leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary, but when, in addition to those I have mentioned, the former Minister of Transport, having been responsible for piloting through the 1948 and 1950 Acts, speaking from this side of the House, has supported the Minister, then I cannot see why this "schemozzle" is going on about this Bill.
But I would not leave the matter there, any more than my hon. Friend who is so concerned because the Bill on the surface appears to take away some authority in regard to getting better accommodation in ships. This Bill has to be related to the main Act, and I am fortified in the attitude which I am taking up by having consulted the unions concerned, or, indirectly, having had the advantage of seeing the representations which they have made to responsible hon. Members on this side, suggesting that this Bill is an agreed Measure.
While I am mentioning that, I think it was quite wrong of my hon. Friend to mention the name of Mr. Percy Knight in connection with this Bill. He ought to realise, as an old hon. Member of this House, that there are a number of re-

sponsible individuals among shipowners, trade unions and other interested parties, who take part in negotiations, and it is entirely wrong that the name of any particular individual, no matter from what side of the industry he should come. should be mentioned in this House. It ought not to have been done, and, if the hon. Member had had anything to say about the position of the National Union of Seamen, he ought to have restricted himself to a reference to the Union as such, or to a representative of the Union, instead of allowing the name of one individual to be mentioned.
As this Amendment on the Order Paper has been referred to—although I cannot see that my hon. Friends can move it, when, in point of fact, it is not before the House—the hon. Member for Gravesend referred to dividing the House. Again, I say to him "What nonsense." What is he going to divide the House about? Does he mean that he and his colleagues will go into the Lobby to register some protest?
Regarding this Amendment, I see that the second hon. Member who has put his name to it has spent his life in education. What in the name of goodness does he know about shipping, and, more particularly—

Mr. J. Johnson: We are now having put before the House the argument that an hon. Member can only speak on his own technical subject, according to which thesis I can only speak of educational matters, and must keep my nose out of debates in any other field of which I have no personal experience. This is an entirely new thesis to me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I would point out to hon. Members that we are debating the Second Reading of this Bill.

Commander Pursey: I have no intention of pursuing that thesis; all I want to do is make my speech. I have no objection to other hon. Members taking part in any debate on any subject at all. The question I would pose to the hon. Member through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is what would be his attitude if he were the last one in the queue in a debate on education and I barged into the debate and pushed him out, even though admitting that tonight there is


plenty of time and that it is not a question of pushing anybody out.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now straying a little from the Second Reading of this Bill.

Commander Pursey: The Bill is supported by both sides of the industry, as has been clearly stated, and everyone, apparently, agrees that it should go through. In fact, as I said earlier in my interjection on a point of order, it appears to me to be simply the equivalent of what would have been a drafting Amendment if this point had been discovered while the Bill was still before the House and before it became an Act.
I am as keen as anyone for improving the accommodation of crews and so on. The explanations have been given, and, therefore, there is no question at all that this is a Bill that should not have been brought before the House. Indeed, it is a Bill which should be given a Second Reading and which should go on the Statute Book for the reasons given. I hope that my two hon. Friends who put down this Amendment will take this as a lesson, and that it will prevent them from diving in off the deep end on future occasions to deal with a subject of which they know practically nothing.

Sir R. Acland: As my hon. and gallant Friend has seen fit to criticise me, may I point out to him that there are two aspects in relation to shipping? There is the aspect of those who work it—the owners workers and technicians—about which I never claimed to have any special knowledge, but there is also the aspect of the people concerned with shipping, namely, traders, customers and producers, and as one who makes no claim to any special knowledge on the technical side, I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that this latter group also has an interest in the subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind hon. Members that the House is considering the Second Reading of this Bill.

8.48 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull East (Commander Pursey) will not accuse me of speaking about something of which I know nothing. I have not had any

experience of running ships or of being in ships, but I have the advantage of representing and of living for many years in a seaport. I would not have made any comment in this debate but for the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) to the effect that the relationship between the men and the employers had always been particularly good.
That is not so. I can remember the time just after the First World War when the shipowners of this country refused point blank to employ white seamen because they could employ coloured seamen at 30s. a month at a time when the wages of British seamen were very much higher. I can remember with some anger how hundreds of British seamen walked the docks at Liverpool trying to get employment only to be met by the complete refusal of the shipowners in the Liverpool area to employ them because, as I say, they could employ lascars much cheaper than the rate laid down by the National Union of Seamen.

Colonel Ropner: If the hon. Lady is saying that British shipowners have employed coloured seamen at lower wages than British seamen, and if she is saying they employed them for that reason, then I think she knows she is saying something which is totally untrue.

Mrs. Braddock: I simply am not saying something that is totally untrue. I know from my own experience after that war that that was the position in the seaport in which I lived.

Colonel Ropner: Colonel Ropner indicated dissent.

Mrs. Braddock: I do not know whether I am in order, but the point was allowed to be made by an hon. Member opposite and, knowing the position as I do and having, at the time, taken part in the representation of many British unemployed seamen in Liverpool, I felt I could not allow that remark to go unchallenged.
I am in the same position as are some of my hon. Friends. When I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper I wondered what the situation was regarding these ships. I made the necessary inquiries because the position in relation to the consultations that have taken pace between seamen and employers has altered very considerably.
On making inquiries I was told that nobody is satisfied with the conditions for crews on very many of the ships owned by British shipowners in this country at the moment and there is no intention at all of reducing the standard of accommodation for crews. Because they are so old and out of date and are still being used it would be impossible to bring the accommodation in some ships up to the standard laid down in the Acts we are now amending. I think that statement covers the reasons for the Amendment to the Bill.
Far from suggesting that there might be any alteration in the high standard of accommodation at present laid down, I am certain that any suggestion of reducing that standard would call for some very drastic action by the seamen who have to sail in these ships. They have complained bitterly in the past and they still complain bitterly. I represent very many British seamen in my constituency who are still travelling in ships in very bad conditions. I know that any suggestion of reducing the standards in new ships now being built, or to prevent alterations being made in the newer type of ships that can be altered, would result in very strong action being taken by the seamen who have to sail in those ships.
After having assured myself that the National Union of Seamen and those organisations responsible for seamen in this country have agreed and are satisfied that this matter can be dealt with on the lines laid down in the Amendment I join my hon. Friends in supporting it.

8.54 p.m.

Captain Robert Ryder: I must say that when I read the Clauses of this Bill I had the same misgivings as have been voiced by hon. Members opposite. These Clauses are a complete blank cheque. It would be difficult to imagine any more sweeping Clauses being put in any Bill.
I am completely re-assured by the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport about his intention in connection with this Bill. But, as we all know, Acts of Parliament remain on the Statute Book for many years and we have to consider what interpretation may be placed on this Bill in a court of law in 40 years' time or maybe later. I put it to my right hon. Friend that these Clauses, copied as they are, he assures

me, from a former Act, are too sweeping. I should like to have seen in the Bill some such remarks as, "In exceptional circumstances the Minister may exempt certain ships from the operation of these Sections of the Acts as the exceptional circumstances may justify." I shall not attempt to re-draft the Clause, but I submit that these words as they stand are too sweeping in their extent.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Before I make the very short comments that I should like to make on this Bill, I wish to refer to the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), because it seems to me, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) said, that we should be in a very curious situation if it was only those with expert knowledge who were able to speak on a Bill in this House.

Commander Pursey: That was not my point at all. Every Member in the House—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue this point now.

Mr. Benn: It seems that the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East, is prepared to make exceptions of classes of Members—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot pursue that point any further.

Mr. Benn: I confess that, as with many other hon. Members who have spoken tonight, I viewed this Bill when I first saw it with intense suspicion, and I am only partially satisfied by the explanation given by the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask two questions which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer when he winds up the debate. We all understand that the Minister's discretion is an essential part of the machinery for Regulations of this kind. The day has long since gone when everything could be put in a Bill; we have to, delegate powers to Ministers, and with complicated Regulations of this kind it is obviously very necessary.
But, as the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) has said, the exemption in this case is very wide, and I think that two additional precautions should be introduced. The first is that the words "after consultation


with those concerned" might be added in this subsection, as is the case in Section 1 of the 1948 Act, which I have read, and the second is that some way should be devised so that all of these exemptions could be debated, if necessary, on a Prayer.
I know there is the normal safeguard for any Orders made by the Minister, even under this amending Act, whereby they can be debated on a Prayer, but if when the original Regulation is made dealing with crew accommodation certain exceptions are made in that Regulation, it seems to me that Mr. Speaker would rule out of order the discussion of those exemptions on the Prayer. To take a practical example, if some Regulation were put into force by the Minister dealing with crew accommodation in passenger ships, and in that Regulation he exempted the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth" specifically by name, surely we should not be allowed to discuss the exemption of the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth," because Mr. Speaker would, no doubt, say that the Regulation did not deal with them and that it dealt with only other vessels. This seems to me to be a very important point.
I hope that when these Regulations are made, general Regulations will be made under the principal Act dealing with standards of crew accommodation, and that exceptions will be made the subject of special Regulations so that we can debate those exceptions on a Prayer instead of finding ourselves excluded from discussing them on a Regulation which itself makes exceptions. If I could have such an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary who, like myself, shares the honour of representing the ancient City and port of Bristol, I should feel much happier about supporting the Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: I rise to take part in this debate because there are in my constituency a very large number of Merchant Navy men who are intimately affected by what the Minister may do under these Regulations. That is the reason why I voiced earlier my sincere regret that the time at which the Bill was available to Members had made it impossible for an hon. Member to make those contacts which he should properly make with those of his constituents who

are affected in order to see what they feel about a very important Bill of this kind.
I must confess that when I read the Bill, I felt, as indeed any person who reads the Bill literally would feel, nothing but the greatest apprehension as to what might be in the mind of the Minister in introducing it. It was not until this morning that I had certain consultations and was pleased to learn that apparently the Bill has been the subject of some conversation with the trade union interests concerned and that apparently they are willing that it should become an Act of Parliament. Nevertheless, that does not excuse Members of this House from examining the Bill very closely.

Mr. Maclay: Mr. Maclay indicated assent.

Mr. Collick: Members of the House of Commons have that right and duty quite apart from anything else. Let me put it quite frankly to the Minister. As I read the Bill, I think it could be a dangerous Bill. I do not suggest for a moment that in the hands of the present Minister it would be such a thing or is likely to be such a thing, but as drafted the Bill could quite easily be dangerous.
After all, what does it do to Section 1 of the 1948 Act? It empowers the Minister to make certain Regulations governing those very important matters about which the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), informed the House—the amount of space available to the crew, sleeping quarters, feeding arrangements and all sorts of things too numerous to mention. The Minister is empowered to make Regulations governing those conditions on those boats. Under the Bill which he is introducing tonight he can exempt any ship from any of the Regulations which he may make under Section 1 of the 1948 Act; and he can also do exactly the same in relation to Section 1 of the 1950 Act.
Am I not right in suggesting that the 1950 Act was the first Act which was in any way intended to lay down certain conditions, by the Minister's Regulations, in relation to fishing vessels? I recall that when I had the honour of serving in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries it was my duty to go to one of the largest fishing ports in the country. There it was impressed upon me by those who were speaking on behalf of the men that it was very difficult nowadays to persuade the


younger men to enter the fishing industry because of the conditions prevailing on our fishing boats.
They were most anxious for the Government to do something to improve the accommodation for the crew on fishing boats. When I returned to London I made certain inquiries and was a little astonished to find that there seemed to be no very clear understanding about what exactly might be done in this connection. Certain things followed, and I think it was largely as a result of them that the Section of the Act of 1950 to which I have referred was introduced. For the first time it empowered the Minister to make Regulations, in the modern sense, governing the accommodation of crews on fishing boats.
Under this Bill we give power to the Minister by a mere stroke of the pen to exclude any ship from the operation of Section 1 of the 1950 Act. I listened with the greatest attention to the Minister's speech but I am bound to say that I was not completely convinced that he had made a case. Possibly that was due. to my inattention, and certainly I do not complain of lack of lucidity in the Minister's explanation.
But I cannot quite understand why, in any of these matters the hon. Gentleman may have in mind, he cannot do this by classification when making the Regulations. The Minister told the House that the draft Regulations were almost ready. I wish hon. Members could have the facility of looking at the draft Regulations before the Committee stage of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister may be able to put them in the Library.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On the Table.

Mr. Collick: No. I am speaking of the draft Regulations. It would help us if, before the Committee. stage of the Bill, we could see them. I do not understand why, when the Minister makes these Regulations, he cannot do this quite successfully by distinguishing between the various classes of vessels. I clay be very thick-headed, but I did not follow the hon. Gentleman when he said that this Bill was absolutely necessary, if we were to have the highest standards laid down in the Regulations. I think that that was his main point in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Maclay: The point is this. This applies not only to new ships, but to

existing ships, which, at some future date, may have to have certain modifications made to their accommodation. If we do not have this power to exempt, the only Regulations we could make would be Regulations which covered the worst possible ship which, owing to her trade, or to her particular method of construction, could not be improved beyond a certain standard. Therefore, there would be a lowering right down instead of a pulling up of the conditions. I am sorry if I cannot make the point clear.

Mr. Collick: I should have thought that the answer to that was that the hon. Gentleman could easily put such a ship in a certain class, if it had been completed before a certain date. I am dealing now with ships that require rebuilding, and so on. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could have made a classification covering that type of ship. Of course, if the Minister tells me that that is utterly impossible, I shall accept his statement.

Mr. Maclay: I am anxious to get this point clear. Consider an old ship. We shall not know until it is in dry dock just what aberrations of construction there are: they need not necessarily be aberrations of construction. She may have been constructed 10, 15 or 20 years ago. But we shall not be able to tell until we see her in dry dock how to get her up to the desirable standards.

Mr. Collick: I should have thought that the Minister's officers at Grimsby and so on would have known the make-up of ships not only 15 or 20 years old but built 40 years ago. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that that is the complete answer, I must accept it, but I should have thought that it would have been possible to have classified the ships in the Regulations, and made the point clear.
I should like the Minister to consider whether we might see the draft Regulations, if they are so far advanced as he has indicated. I wonder if he could give me an answer to this question? It is probably an easy one to answer. Supposing this Bill becomes law, and the Minister grants an exception to any particular ship, how are the men of that ship to know that that ship is exempt from the standard Regulations?

Mr. Maclay: Is the hon. Gentleman sitting down because he is asking me a


question and awaiting an answer, or because he has finished his speech?

Mr. Collick: I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary, when winding up, would deal with the point.

9.9 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): This discussion, like the discussions upon the predecessors to this Bill, has been characterised by a most agreeable degree of unanimity. Such controversy as has developed has, I think, been due to excess of zeal on the benches opposite; but zeal is an excellent quality; and I think it is a healthy sign that so many hon. Members should have thought it proper to speak on the important topic of the crew conditions in merchant ships.
Let me begin by giving an assurance that was asked for and that we gladly give—that any exemption under this Bill will be for the better. The whole object is to get rid of the rigidity that may arise, and to cater for the specialised ship; in other words, to ensure that British initiative in shipbuilding improvement shall not be hampered by too narrow—

Mr. Awbery: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that that will be put in the Bill, and that any alterations will be improvements?

Mr. Braithwaite: It is very early for interruptions to a winding-up speech. I have taken notice of all the interventions that have been made, including that of the hon. Gentleman, and I will come to his remarks in due course. I shall try to deal with hon. Members seriatim. I begin with that assurance to the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes).
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), whom I think that we would all like to congratulate on a most successful broadcast on Saturday evening, to which I for one listened with great enjoyment, was concerned about the powers granted to the Minister under the Bill, and, of course, he was not alone in that. I quote the words given in Clause 1 (1):
… The Minister may exempt any ships or classes of ships from any requirements of regulations made under this section, either

absolutely or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.
Those are words which have been criticised by a number of hon. Gentlemen.
The short answer—I am now coming to what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), who made much the same point—is this: not only are they words carried in previous statutes, but they are words which are agreeable to both sides of the industry. The hon. Member for Bristol, Central—a Parliamentary neighbour of mine—said that this was a very wide authority to give to anyone. He said, "There is no faultless man"—I took down his words. For six years, the hon. Gentleman has been pleased to give these powers to the faultless gentlemen who sit opposite to me. The right hon. Member for East Ham, South, was regarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite as sufficiently free from faults to be allowed to carry this very wide authority.

Mr. Awbery: The right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), put in his Bill that there would be full consultation with the men and the employers before any alterations were made in connection with any regulation. But the Bill says that the Minister may exempt all classes of ships from any requirements of Regulations. That gives full power to the Minister without any consultation whatever.

Mr. Braithwaite: It seems difficult to get this point home to the hon. Gentleman. This is one of a series of Merchant Shipping Bills, and we hope that it will shortly become an Act. It may almost be described as legislation by reference. The provision to make exemptions, as the Minister thinks fit, appears directly in the previous statutes, and may I remind him once again that these words have the approval of both sides of the industry, including, of course, the trade unions. There would have been far more criticism, I think, from the hon. Gentleman if my right hon. Friend had come to the Box without having consulted both sides of the industry. We now come before them with that agreement.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is not the answer contained in Clause 2 that the Acts may be cited together as the Merchant Shipping Acts?

Mr. Braithwaite: The hon. and learned Gentleman has a firmer grasp of the obvious than usual. I thought that that was apparent to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am grateful to him for enlightening them.
The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) raised the position of fishermen and the Transport and General Workers' Union which represents them, and I am only too happy to give the undertaking for which he asked, that consultation with that body will take place when operating the Bill when it becomes an Act. That may also help to cover the objection which was made by his hon. Friend who sits behind him.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) and the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), had a slight altercation on certain unhappy events in days gone by. I feel that hon. Members on both sides of the House are tonight anxious that this industry should look forward into the future rather than discuss such unhappy controversies. We believe that the Bill enables that to take place.
The hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), made one of his refreshing interventions in our discussions. He was another old Parliamentary neighbour of mine until redistribution removed me from his side. We used to have a large number of disputations in other Parliaments. Tonight, I would congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on his detached consideration of the Bill. He placed the British Legion firmly behind him for one evening, in order to come to the rescue of the merchant seamen.
I would add, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Rugby that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is fully qualified to address the House, as I hope one day he will, on the subject of education. He was a lecturer of great distinction, and on many occasions he has enlivened the lower deck of the Royal Navy. Many a naval rating has been lulled to sleep by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, so I hope that he will one day address the House on that subject.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) was another Member who felt

that the Clause was too sweeping. He took a rather different view of it, however. He said that it had been copied from previous statutes, and that 40 years from now the situation might be very different. Indeed, it might, but at the moment I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that this phraseology was not only copied but agreed with those concerned. I am optimistic enough to feel that 40 years from now the House of Commons will be as alert on these matters as it has shown itself to be tonight, and that if the machinery is creaking or is not satisfactory, the necessary amendment of the law will be made.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), put two specific points to us on the machinery of the Regulations. He wanted to be quite sure that these steps were taken after consultation, and would like to see the words actually inserted in the Bill. There is an actual reason for this omission, which is that it has not been suggested by either side of the industry, by those who have taken part in the conversations, which led up to this Measure, that consultation will be possible in the case of every individual ship. Consultation will take place in certain cases. The safeguard still exists. Should there be contraventions or a backsliding in the case of any individual vessel, the unions will be on the alert and will be able to call the attention of the Ministry to the facts. Consultation in every individual case, we believe, is not practicable as a piece of machinery. It is for that reason that the Bill is on a somewhat wider basis.

Mr. Benn: Are we to understand from that explanation that the great number of individual ships, and some classes of ship, will be exempted from the Bill, and that the Minister is to lay down individual conditions for almost every ship in the Merchant Navy? Otherwise, I cannot see why consultation should not take place.

Mr. Braithwaite: That is not the intention. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see, as Member for Bristol, South-East, that the situation may arise suddenly when a ship is under repair and a defect is suddenly disclosed. When the ships are under repair or when instructions for a remedy have been passed by word of mouth that condition cannot apply. This has been very thoroughly thrashed out on both sides of the industry, and it is not


possible to write into the Bill an undertaking of that kind.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: On this question of consultation when ships are under repair, can the hon. Gentleman say if he has in mind the continuing of the noxious practice of putting high-pressure steam pipes through the cabins of the crew, which is dangerous? Will consultations take place not only with the Amalgamated Engineering Union, who are interested in this matter, but also with the Seamen's Union?

Mr. Braithwaite: I think the hon. Member will find that the Regulations cover all the main provisions. I confess that he has put a point to me to which I cannot give a snap answer. I am quite certain that all these matters are, in fact, generally governed by the Regulations.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, wanted, as a second point, some machinery for praying in these matters. Again, the reason is the same as given in reply to his first point that the ships come into port and are actually in a state of repair and under repair at the moment when improvement is made in accordance with the Regulations. One cannot really pray about that when a ship is under repair, and I and those concerned with the matter do not see what Parliamentary procedure there is which can cope with that situation.
I have left to the last the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), who put an Amendment on the Order Paper. If I may say so without offence, it seemed to me that the hon. Member found himself this evening between wind and water. There is no reason at all why any hon. Member of the House should not take a step which the hon. Baronet has. I should be the last to take the line that only those can discuss these matters who have intimate knowledge of them. The hon. Baronet suspected that there was something here which required probing, and he made a speech which dealt with the issue of freights. The Chair allowed the hon. Member to make a passing reference to this subject, and for the purposes of the record I hope I may be allowed to make a passing reference in reply.
The hon. Member will appreciate that this question of shipping freights is international, that shipping is a world-wide

problem and that ocean freights are determined internationally and reflect the conditions obtaining in commerce generally. There is no separate level of freights applicable only to United Kingdom ships. The rates applicable to regular liner traffic are determined by the appropriate shipping conferences. These conference tariffs are highly scientific and delicately balanced schedules settled by agreement among the ships of all flags operated on the route concerned. While, taking into account fluctuating costs of operation, they are designed to secure the most efficient loading of the ships and to encourage the development of trade at the highest possible level. Several Governmental inquiries, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, into the operation of the conference system have shown it to be in the best interests of shipper and shipowner alike.
Tramp charter rates are even more susceptible to general world conditions. In the early months of 1950 they fell to a level at which they were quite unremunerative in many trades, and a growing number of ships was being laid up. Indeed, it looked at the time as if a difficult situation might arise similar to that mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash as having occurred between the wars. But the Korean campaign brought with it a sudden expansion of the demand for ships. This was accompanied by large abnormal requirements of coal from the United States to Europe, due mainly to the inability of this country and Germany to supply the increasing needs of the European countries, and a great rearmament programme brought with it a great demand for coal.
At the same time, threatened famine in India could only be averted by large abnormal imports of wheat from North America and Australia. It was largely these developments which caused such a sharp rise in the freights. Indeed, the hon. Baronet may recall that units of the United States reserve merchant shipping fleet were brought into action. The rates began to rise, but so also did the operating costs. Wages, fuel and stores have all risen appreciably, but even more serious a factor in this respect has been the lengthening of the time for loading and discharging ships in all parts of the


world. A quicker turn-round would bring lower freights.
These increases in the cost of operation affect all classes of shipping, and both liner and tramp shipowners have had to meet them by increasing their rates. Incidentally, some very wise remarks on the subject of freights were made in the House by my hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Transport on 13th December, 1950. He foreshadowed exactly what has taken place in the freight markets of the world consequent upon certain developments at that time.
To sum up, it is the desire of both sides of the industry that the Bill shall have a speedy passage to the Statute Book, and I trust that the House, after this full discussion, will now feel able to let us have the Second Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES, &c.) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

9.28 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As on the two previous occasions on which the Bill has been before the House it has been possible to spend respectively five minutes and nought minutes upon it, perhaps I may be allowed to start again this evening.
I explained on the last occasion that the parents of the Bill were the late Government, but, in view of the unfortunate accident which has prevented them from attending the Christening of the child, we are very glad to act as its sponsors, and that gives a practical example of that continuity in government which we are always glad to apply when we are able to do so and are not prevented by any party differences. We are particularly glad to do so in this case because during the last Parliament hon. Members of the Opposition on a number of occasions agreed with statements made from the Government benches as to the desirability of

remedying certain anomalies and grievances which existed.
The main point of the Bill is to raise the salaries of the county court judges and the magistrates, and the provisions made for this purpose fulfil quite literally the pledge which was given by the Lord Chancellor in the late Government on 18th July last. Other provisions in the Bill were also approved by the late Government after full consideration and consultation with all concerned. Some of them relate to Scotland, and I shall be able to deal with these a little later, if necessary in detail.
The facts I have mentioned with regard to agreement do not, of course, alter the fact that it is the right and the duty of the House to scrutinise the Bill with care, and we shall take due account of any criticisms or suggestions which may be made during the debate. I stress the importance of the fact that there is no question here of any party issue.
In the first instance, it is most desirable that in dealing with questions of the administration of justice, we should not have any party differences. Those of us who have had the privilege—my right hon. and learned predecessor will agree with me about this—of going to international gatherings and meeting those who are concerned with the law in other countries, know very well what a tremendous respect they have for our whole system of justice and what an admiration they have for those who conduct it.
Secondly, I am particularly glad that this should be a non-party matter, because it is the first matter for which I have had the responsibility as a Law Officer. I like to believe that it is possible for Law Officers to avoid violent party conflict of any kind in their work, and I am quite sure that I shall have the help of my hon. and right hon. and learned predecessors on the other side of the House in preserving everything which is to do with my office from any political considerations so far as that can possibly be done. That will certainly be my endeavour, and I shall try to carry it out.
I ask the House now to look for a moment at the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for an increase in the expenditure on the salaries of county


court judges and magistrates. The present salary in each case is £2,000, apart from the chief magistrate, who is a special case and who can be left out for comparative purposes. Those salaries of £2,000 were fixed by the Statutory Salaries Act, 1937, and, in fact, the county court judges and the magistrates have had the same salaries since 1875.
So far as county court judges are concerned, it appears at first sight, from a casual glance at the Bill, that their salaries are being raised by £800 a year as compared with £500 for the magistrates. That is not the true position, because since 1947 county court judges have been sitting as Divorce Commissioners and have been paid extra for that purpose. The payments that they receive for this purpose amount, on the average, to approximately £300 per year per judge.
I say "on the average" because the extra remuneration which is earned by the county court judges differs very widely in different parts of the country. In fact, the system works rather unfairly. Through no avoidable cause, in some parts of the country the judges are able, when there is work to be done, to do work of a much more extensive character, and in other cases there is very little of it. In fact, the figures have. ranged from over £1,000 to under £50. The average for 1950 was £330.
It was therefore decided by the last Government, and the result is, that this remuneration in respect of the divorce jurisdiction should be compounded at £300 per annum per judge. Therefore, for the purpose of comparison, the starting point for the county court judges was £2,300. Consequently, so far as the cost to the taxpayer is concerned, the extra amount which is to be paid to magistrates as a whole is the same as that paid to county court judges as a whole. From their starting points now they are receiving £500 a year for each.
There is, however, a repercussion from this which I ought to make plain at once which gives some ground for grievance on that score as regards the magistrates because, hitherto, as the salaries have been the same, so therefore, the pensions have also been the same. But now, as the salary of county court judges is going up to £2,300 plus £500 and will be £2,800,

therefore the pension will be based on £2,800 as against £2,500 in the case of the magistrates. I mention that in order to make clear to hon. Members who are interested, as I know hon. Members on both sides are, that it is fully present to the mind of the Government.

Dr. Barnett Stross: In using the word "magistrate," does the hon. and learned Gentleman include all stipendiary magistrates, including those in the provinces?

The Attorney-General: I am coming to that in a moment. In the first place, it will be found that they are dealt with in the case of London magistrates and in consequential provisions in regard to the others in the other subsections. The first point is quite obviously a broader one, why should there be any increase at all? It was indicated that some hon. Members might be going to question that. I want to make it clear that we are taking a perfectly firm and determined line about this matter. We say that the county court judges and magistrates have been underpaid for many years past—

Mr. Ellis Smith: So have the engineers.

The Attorney-General: —and an increase in their salaries was long overdue. If that is disputed, it raises a very simple and clear issue, which the House must itself decide. I am bound to say that I think a great deal of hot air has been blown off about this kind of thing at one time or another—

Mr. Smith: Especially by the legal profession.

The Attorney-General: The difference is that we are paid for it and perhaps others are not. There is even talk, I have read in one or two of the newspapers, about these increases being an incentive to inflation. One newspaper talked about "triggering off a new inflationary spiral." I do not know how one can trigger off a spiral, but I hope the House will not take that kind of thing very seriously. After all, if one is serious and fair about this matter one recognises that these men have been at the back of the queue all the time. They have been running after the bus of inflation and certainly have not been driving it. They have had no increase at all since 1937.
I am sure that some of those who criticise this proposal, without having thought about it very much, ought to pause a moment and reflect what is the position of the other people in the same sort of region of salaries—the Civil Service, as a result of the Chorley Report. These comparable salaries have all been raised very substantially. The London County Council, not one of the terrible Tory, capitalist, organisations, have raised their salaries on this level even more, considerably more, than is now proposed. The same happened to such people as justices' clerks and registrars and, in addition, the general salary rate has gone up as well. Even Members of Parliament have got more than they did get.
As for the other argument, that the increase would stimulate demands for wage increases and cause ill-feeling, I do not think hon. Members will be very serious about that; at least I hope not. I do not believe that is a proper reflection of the view of the ordinary man-in-the-street. He is not really jealous of other people because they have a little more than he has—at least most of them are not, there are people who have not the same high motives as others, but, on the whole, I think people are quite sensible about that kind of thing. We shall certainly have the courage to say plainly what we believe to be right, without any fear of consequent unpopularity or loss of votes.
We shall do well to take into account the statements and pledges given by the late Government, as expressed by the Lord Chancellor after very careful investigation and consideration and remember that he said that under present conditions the task of finding suitable men for these posts was causing him increasing anxiety. That is the Lord Chancellor in the late Government. I am authorised by my noble and learned Friend to say that he entirely agrees with that view, and would like the House to endorse what was said by his predecessor.
I ask the House also to remember the very difficult and responsible kind of work that these men have to do, and the absolute necessity that they should never for one moment relax. If they once slack off during their day's work they may be doing somebody some real damage. They do a very great deal of work without any assistance from counsel. I have no doubt there are some hon. Members who think

that they do it much better without the assistance of counsel, but that is not the view of those who have experience in these matters.
They require tremendous patience, concentration and a great deal of knowledge of human nature as well. They have to investigate cases with very little information. In many cases county court judges do not even have any books with them and try to do their best without them. It does require men with a considerable knowledge of the law to do that.
I would pay a tribute to these men who do that job and would fairly acknowledge that they have done it very well indeed for years. I wish to make it clear that I am speaking of them bracketed together, the county court judges and the magistrates. I do so advisedly, because in the past they have been drawn from the same sort of level at the Bar and no change in their status is to be implied from these proposals. As I have already said, the existing facts as regards their annual remuneration create a different basis upon which the £500 increase operates, and as regards their pensions that does have an effect of differentiation. If it were not for the pension I doubt if they would raise any objection to the present proposal, or that they could legitimately do so. But, undoubtedly, with regard to the pension they have something to say.
It might not be much difference in actual cash by the time they have the different pension. There may not be much in it after taxation, but it does upset them, I know, from the point of view of prestige and their natural pride in their work. I fully recognise that and I wish it could be avoided. All I can say is that it is an arrangement which was arrived at only after long and anxious consideration. There is this to be said about it that a bird in the hand is worth two in this case, because if we were to start to try to re-open the whole matter there is a strong chance that one would lose the Bill altogether, and it would be a question of whether we could get it again.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question? Does he see any prospect of some provision being made for a very learned and skilful class of persons without whose services the judges might


not be as efficient as they are, namely, the judges' clerks, who deserve some provision being made for them?

The Attorney-General: That is a matter I will look into, but at the present moment that is not in the Bill, and I must deal with the contents of the Bill.
I want to make it perfectly clear that no change of status is intended to be made by the Bill. There is a change in the pension rate, but all that I can say is that I have no authority to give any kind of undertaking with regard to the matter. There may be no opportunity in the near future for reviewing it, but, as I have stated categorically, it is not intended, by this Bill, to effect any alterations in status, and I should not personally be willing in future to argue that it should have that effect.
I would ask the House to accept the position that the Government have made the statement that they would not say that at any future time it may not be done, and that the point should not be raised now. I think that all hon. Members interested will take the same view and bear witness to the fact that what we are doing today is not intended to, and must not be regarded as, creating a precedent for the future. That is as far as I can go, and I will not be a party to arguing in future that the acceptance of this Bill today is making any permanent alteration in the status.
So much for the main part of Clause 1. It is, I might mention, retrospective, and perhaps it is one of the few examples of retrospective legislation that many people have been prepared to support. There are also other provisions in this Clause. Subsection (3) deals with the retrospective arrangement, and subsections (4) and (5) allow directions to be given by the Secretary of State to have the effect of increasing the salaries of stipendiary magistrates to put them on the same basis, while subsection (5) also allows a corresponding increase for the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the County of London.

Mr. Ede: Did I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that stipendiary magistrates in the provinces will be brought up to the same standard as Metropolitan magistrates?

The Attorney-General: I do not think I said that. It would allow a direction by the Secretary of State, under Section 32 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, to increase the salaries of stipendiaries so as to have the same effect. There are, I think, 15 magistrates involved, and their salaries range from £1,400 to £2,000. The proposal is that they would run from £2,000 to £2,500. Subsection (5) deals with the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the County of London, in consultation with the London County Council. Subsection (6) gives the date of effect of this provision.
Clause 2 deals with the Lords Commissioners of the Justiciary in Scotland, and it is a provision simply designed to remove an anomaly which has existed for many years. They are forbidden to receive any allowances for travelling expenses, which, of course, judges in England have had for many years. The matter was last considered in 1887, and it is intended now to put them on the same basis as English judges.
Clause 3 is another remedial provision dealing with the salaries of the sheriffs-substitute and providing for the payment of travelling expenses. They have had them in some cases, and this Bill now covers all cases. Clause 4 deals with Northern Ireland, and here it is proposed to raise the salaries of judges of the High Court of Justice from £3,000 to £3,500, which is the salary received by the Lord Justice of Appeal. It has been considered that the judges ought not to receive less than the Lord Justice, who only receives £3,500. The salary of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland remains unaffected.
Subsection (2) makes provision for the payment of circuit expenses to the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland which has so far been left out. Clause 5 is simply a provision which rectifies an omission in the existing law. When a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary is subsequently appointed to another judicial office, it is necessary to make provision for that case. In fact, it has recently arisen in the case of Lord MacDermott who became the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
Those are the provisions of the Bill, and, as I have told the House, they are all provisions which were carefully considered and examined and approved by


the last Government, and we ask the House to honour the pledge given by the members of that Government.

9.51 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: It is now nine minutes to 10 o'clock and it would, perhaps, be rather optimistic to hope that we should get the debate on this Bill completed by 10 o'clock, as a number of hon. Members will no doubt wish to make contributions to it. So far as I am concerned, I would simply say, in the first place, that I am glad to have the opportunity of replying to my successor following his moving of what, as he has himself stated, is the first Bill for which he has had personal responsibility.
I am glad to have that opportunity, and I would express myself in very cordial agreement with him when he says that in so far as the administration of justice is concerned, his office, the office which I held before him, is one which cannot involve party issues. The administration of justice must be wholly apart from any party differences.
This Bill, as has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman, is one designed to carry out the purposes of the late Government. Those purposes were expressed by the Lord Chancellor in the late Government, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, in a speech made in another place on 18th July this year. The purposes of the Bill have been explained by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I do not think I would very usefully occupy the time of the House if I again repeated what he said.
Speaking for myself from this side of the House, I want simply to say that we did, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, very carefully consider these matters. So far as England is concerned, the main changes—though not the only changes—are the alterations in the salaries paid to county court judges and to metropolitan and stipendiary magistrates. In so far as stipendiary magistrates are concerned, the provision enables changes to be made rather than makes the changes.
We took the view after very careful consideration—and I am speaking for my colleagues—that it would be fair to make these changes having regard to various circumstances. One circum-

stance, of course, was the change in the value of money. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, these salaries have not been changed since 1937, and, of course, circumstances have changed very considerably since then.
But another circumstance which I would like to put before the House, and in particular bring to the notice of hon. Gentlemen who might desire to question the increases is that great and increasing responsibility has been put upon the shoulders of county court judges and metropolitan and stipendiary magistrates, and the tendency all the time is for that responsibility to be increased as time goes on.
The county court judges and magistrates, I think the whole House will agree, have upon their shoulders a task which is perhaps more difficult than that which devolves upon any other branch of the judiciary. They are directly in touch with the people day in and day out they have to concern themselves at first hand with the extremely perplexing difficulties which agitate the lives of the ordinary men and women in the street.
I am quite certain everybody will agree it is greatly to their credit that they have discharged their responsibilities without criticism. In this country we have come to take it for granted that day in and day out the county court judges and the police court magistrates will carry out their duties in the highest traditions that we expect from our courts. That is a most difficult and most responsible task, and public confidence in the administration of justice in our country and indeed its unsurpassed reputation throughout the world depend upon the wisdom and discretion in particular of the county court judges and the police court magistrates.
These circumstances, and the circumstance to which I have previously referred, namely the change in the value of money and the fact that their salaries have not been altered, led us to the view it would be right and proper and fair to them that their salary position should now come under consideration. We gave it very anxious consideration, desirous of doing justice both to them and to other persons in similar salary brackets and we came to the conclusion that the increases which the Bill at present before the House embodies were fair and reasonable provisions.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My right hon. and learned Friend is talking about various salaried people who contribute to the administration of justice in this country. Will he tell me why, when he was considering this question, he did not take into account that very class to which I have just referred—the judges' clerks who are making a great contribution to the administration of justice in this country.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: And county court judges.

Mr. Hughes: I am not talking about county court judges and I do not want any interruption from my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir F. Soskice: So far as I am concerned, I recognise to the full the value of the services of the judges' clerks. There is plenty of time; they can be considered at a later date.

Mr. Hughes: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend why they should be considered at a later date? Their salaries are very much less than the salaries of judges and their need is greater than the need of judges.

Sir F. Soskice: We must deal with one problem at a time. At the moment we are considering the salaries of county court judges, police court magistrates and others. No doubt other salaried groups should come under review in due course, but I am simply concerning myself at the moment with this Bill, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will follow me in that at any rate. The position of the judges' clerks also, of course, requires the full and careful consideration which I hope the House will give to this Bill.
It is for those reasons, concerning what I hope I may say are the main provisions of this Bill, that I certainly welcome the Bill, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading when it has carefully considered its provisions and the implications of those provisions. The Bill, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, does not deal exclusively with England or with county court judges and police court magistrates. There are other provisions perhaps of less fundamental character in the later Clauses of the Bill. The purposes of those have been

explained by the Attorney-General, and no doubt the House will wish to give the same consideration to those later provisions as well.
In particular, the Bill is not concerned exclusively with England. It deals with Northern Ireland, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley), will no doubt wish to point out at a later stage, if he is fortunate enough to be called, the changes it makes in respect of the Scottish judiciary. I hope the House will give that careful consideration.

It being Ten o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Mineral Development Charge Setoff Regulations, 1951, dated 27th September, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th October, 1951, in the last Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Marples.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: These Regulations for which approval is now being sought are necessary to give effect to the second part of the Mineral Workings Act which was placed upon the Statute Book in the last Session. Without these Regulations that part of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, which is general in its effect, would be meaningless. The operative words of the Act without these Regulations merely refer to
such minerals as may be prescribed or determined by … the Regulations.
Therefore, until these Regulations are approved by this House and in another place the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, is incomplete and ineffective.
The necessity and the urgency of passing the Mineral Workings Act in the last Session was that the three-year moratorium upon the application of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to minerals came to an end on 1st July this year. Therefore, had the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, not been passed, and if that Act had not been followed by these Regulations, then development values arising from the existence of workable minerals would have come under the


general and ordinary provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It was to place them in a special position that the Act was passed and these Regulations are now before the House. It will be observed that five months have already passed since the moratorium to which I have referred came to an end.
The reason I detain the House on these Regulations is this. Should it be the fact that in the near future a more or less fundamental change were to be made in the principles of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or at any rate that part of it which relates to compensation and development charge, then both the Mineral Workings Act itself and these Regulations would be superfluous. It might, therefore, be assumed that the fact that the House is being asked tonight to approve these Regulations, which were made in September under the previous Government, was an indication that in the immediate future no drastic alteration of the basis of the 1947 Act was intended.
So far as minerals are concerned, it has long been the view of hon. Members on this side of the House that such a drastic change should take place. I think that view was very concisely put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) in the debate on the Second Reading of the Mineral Workings Bill, when he said:
… we on this side of the House have never approved of minerals being brought within the scope of these financial provisions at all. We thought at the time—and we still think—that an Act designed to deal primarily with the development of land for building was not suited to deal with the problem of minerals, and we warned the Government that difficulties would arise from their decision to include minerals in the financial provisions of the Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 680.]
We are, therefore, as those words remind the Committee, committed as a party to the view that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as it stands, is an unsuitable instrument for dealing with development values relating to minerals. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and the Minister are seized of the urgency of early action about the 1947 Act, if action is to be effective at all. For one reason, the Treasury scheme which is affected by these Regulations, a part of which is governed by what is written into these Regulations, must, if it is to be effective within the time-table

of the 1947 Act, be presented to the House presumably before the end of the current Session.
In the second place, any policy in regard not only to house building but also to development by building in general, is so profoundly affected by the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, that the two factors are really two aspects of one matter of policy. Finally, as every day goes by, more payments of development charge are being made under the 1947 Act. If a new course is to be entered upon, therefore, difficulties inherent in the transitional provisions which would be necessary are piling up day by day and week by week.
Fortunately, the Regulations which we have before the House provide that payment shall not be made, so that in themselves they do not necessarily make the. task of initiating a different policy more difficult but, of course, there are still development charges falling to be paid in relation to mineral-bearing land which is not covered by the current Regulations. I think it is fair to assume, therefore, that the Government must be very well aware of the urgency of a decision on the principle of the 1947 Act.
My main purpose in rising tonight is to secure from my hon. Friend the most explicit assurance that he can give that the presentation of these Regulations for acceptance is not, as I know is suspected in quarters not so much inside as outside the House, evidence that a revision of the 1947 Act is to be deferred to the Greek Kalends but is merely an automatic and mechanical step which will in no way prejudice the later Measure which we hope to see before very long.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: It will be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary can give an approximate estimate—no doubt it would be approximate—of how much of the global fund of £300 million will go to the owners of mineral interests dealt with under these Regulations. The sum of £40 million has been mentioned, I think in another place, in the debate on the Committee stage of the 1951 Bill; but with great respect—and I think hon. Members on all sides might agree on this—I should have thought that for all the development values in mining other


than coal in this country at present—gravel and salt and china clay and ironstone and all the rest—£40 million was probably a very small figure indeed and a very moderate estimate.
Nevertheless, under these Regulations the owners of mineral interests will get 20s. in the £ on their claims, and that is a tremendous slice out of the global fund. As is well known, they are not the first preferential claimants on the fund, because we already have the near-ripe builders, with their preferential claim, and the single-plot owners, neither of whose total claims, I should think, will be as much as that of the owners of mineral interests. But the aggregate of the claims of this class of owners of development value is adding up to a very substantial figure indeed.
I want to ask how much of this £300 million global fund is to be left to be divided between the unpreferred claimants for the loss of development value? I draw attention to the point that when the £300 million figure was decided upon by the House as the appropriate amount of the global fund for payment to those who were losing development value, it was argued to be a fair figure, and I am not saying tonight that it was either too high a figure or too low a figure; but the House accepted that figure without knowing, as I understand it, that there was to be this series of substantial preferential claims permitted upon it.
Now it seems to me that the whole basis of the thing is being altered. I wonder why it is—I recognise that this is not a matter upon which there is direct controversy between the different sides of the House—but I wonder why it is that owners of mineral interests are allowed to do so well as they are to do. They do not have to be working the mines; they do not have to be operating the excavation of minerals; they have only to own land which is subject to a short mining lease; and the effect of these Regulations is that in such a case the owner can recover the whole of his development value on a claim upon the global £300 million.
We have got, I think, as is generally recognised in all quarters of the House, a very tangled, complicated and difficult piece of legislation. I ought to have

given notice of this inquiry to the Parliamentary Secretary. I shall readily understand it if an answer is not immediately available. It would be useful, however, I think, if he could, every now and again, in the law of town and country planning, come down to earth and let us know what is really happening. In connection with these particular Regulations the inquiry to which I should like to have an answer, and for which answer I should be grateful, is: How much out of the £300 million is to be required to set off against the claims of these owners of mineral interests for the loss of development value? How much of that global sum is to be required, and how deeply and seriously are going to be affected the rights to claims of other classes of owners of development value?
I think that it is entirely wrong that this House, after careful consideration of a whole variety of matters, having decided upon a global sum like £300 million as being the value of the compensation that should be paid for the loss of development rights, should then have to see the whole basis of the calculation frittered away by a series of preferential claims.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: Those of us who, in the last Parliament but one, fought for many long weeks and many long months against the principles contained in Parts VI and VII of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, will welcome the belated conversion of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) to the point of view which we have consistently advocated during the past few years. We said when we occupied those benches, and I have no doubt that we shall say it again now we occupy these, that to fix a global sum of £300 million in this case, without any real or apparent justification ever being offered to this House, or to the Standing Committee which considered the 1947 Bill at great length, was not a proceeding that commended itself to us or to others in the country.

Mr. Irvine: As the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to congratulate himself on what he regarded as my conversion in this matter, perhaps he will allow me to make it plain that I have not now, and never had, any objection to the fixing of


the global sum in that manner. My objection is that, having decided on the quantum of that global sum, the whole basis of policy should be changed by a series of preferential claims by a particular class of owner.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made his position even clearer than it was, because if the global sum could by any conceivable stretch of the imagination be recognised as being sufficient to give full and just compensation to all claimants, there would be no need to give a preferential place in the queue of claimants upon that sum. It is only because we say that the sum of £300 million is demonstrably inadequate for all the claimants for loss of development rights, that we think it is wrong in principle that preferential places in the queue of claimants should be given to any class of person.
I cannot and would not object to these Regulations, which in the circumstances of the last Parliament were agreed by both parties, but which in the circumstances of this Parliament must be recognised to be of a transitional character only, because we on these benches cannot accept the position that the financial provisions of the 1947 Act are sacrosanct. We are pledged to amend them, we are determined that they shall be amended, and we are anxious that they shall be amended in this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now talking about other legislation which would be out of order in this discussion. He must confine himself to the Regulations before us.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, and I recognise that what you say is perfectly correct, and was, of course, justified. All I want to say is that so long as it is recognised that these Regulations now before the House are of a temporary character only, then I am sure we can accept them in the spirit in which we accepted them in the last Parliament.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes on these very technical Regulations at this hour. I should like to say a word or two, first in regard to what has fallen from the lips

of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). He has spent a little time in seeking to estimate what proportion of the £300 million fund will be earmarked for preferential claims. I agree with him that it is a difficult and, maybe, an unrewarding process of speculation, because there is not sufficient data to enable one to arrive at any scientific assessment.
I agree with him that it will be a large sum, and every amount of preferential payment, be it for mineral undertakers or be it for builders, will operate to the detriment of other claimants, so long as there is a fixed sum of £300 million. The hon. Member speculated as to how the figure of £300 million had come to be assessed. I can give him the answer briefly—it was by hazard—by guess; there was no scientific basis for it at all, and at the time that figure was fixed there were, of course, no preferential payments. They arrived on the scene during the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Act.
I am on record as having made this criticism at that time, and subsequently in 1948, when the Development Charges Exemptions Regulations were adopted, and when I pointed out that the system of preferential payments did involve a slice by an ever-increasing class from the fixed cake of compensation, and that the inevitable result was that by that time there was not much left for others.
Minerals are a very good illustration of the unwisdom of that approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—the more fortunate part of Wolverhampton—said, minerals should never have been dealt with in that Act at all. If minerals had not been dealt with in that Act then, of course, payments would not fall to be deducted from the £300 million fund. As a matter of fact, what has happened as a result of these compensation Regulations is that on the whole minerals are going to pay very little by way of development charge, but they will, by their exemption, prejudice others. Therefore, what I and many of my hon. Friends have always contended is that minerals should never have been included in this sum, and that basically the whole principle of the development charge as established in the 1947 Act was wrong.
I should like to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member


for Wolverhampton, South-West and my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), as to the effect of these Regulations on the future of the development charge position. I, of course, entirely sympathise with the position of Ministers who find time running against them in a complicated matter such as this, and it is fortunate that the mineral Regulations matter the less because in the ordinary way—though there are exceptions to this—payments other than by way of a set-off will not be made until 20 years from 1953. So the mineral position is less difficult than the position regarding other aspects of development charges.
I should like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that while the time aspect in regard to minerals is not urgent, in regard to every other aspect—I hope I am keeping within the bounds of order—time is running very rapidly indeed, because of the date fixed by section 65 of the 1947 Act. I hope my hon. Friend will keep this in mind and also the desirability of these two things—the seeking of a new solution in respect of minerals and the speeding up of the radical amendment of the development charge legislation under the principal Act.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that those matters will be borne in mind, and I also hope that it will be borne in mind that criticism of the parent Act, under which these Regulations are laid, is out of order. We have to deal with the Regulations and not with the parent Act.

10.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am relieved of a great deal of embarrassment in answering hon. Members on both sides of the House who raised this matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to say, however, that my right hon. Friend has under careful and anxious consideration the operations of the Town and Country Planning Act and, flowing from it, the operations of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, and that he is well aware that some speedy action must be taken.

Mr. Lindgren: This is rather an important statement. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Mineral Workings

Act. Does he mean the mineral working under certain sections of that Act other than iron-ore workings?

Mr. Marples: I was speaking of the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, as it flowed from the Town and Country Planning Act. My right hon. Friend, as is well-known, not only in this House but to the country as a whole, committed himself to a review of the working of the Town and Country Planning Act and the development charge.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member will appreciate that this is very important. He is emphatic in saying the Mineral Workings Act, 1951. I appreciate that this is a very complicated business and that the hon. Gentleman has only just had the honour of going into office. But the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, covers iron-ore workings in the Midlands area and was intended to cover iron-ore workings of other areas as well. The question is: Are the Government going to tamper with the provisions of the 1951 Act so far as it affects iron-ore working? If they do it will be very serious. If they do not mean to do that then, in fairness to the people working this mineral, the hon. Member should make the position plain and show that he was referring to minerals other than iron ore as affected by the 1951 Act.

Mr. Marples: The only thing that is under review is the question of compensation for mineral working. The House is only concerned at the moment with the compensation from the £300 million under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, and the Town and Country Panning Act, 1947. I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), and my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. ThorntonKemsley), that my right hon. Friend has under anxious and careful consideration the question of compensation under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
I want now to answer a point put by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford pointed out, it is extremely difficult to see how the division of the £300 million will take place, for this reason: that it was difficult to see how it was arrived at in the first place. Having


said that it was difficult to arrive at in the first place, obviously it is difficult to know how it is to be apportioned. Therefore, I think that as his party passed the Act and made the basis for the £300 million he has no complaint against this Government.

Mr. Irvine: I agree that the apportionment would be very difficult to determine, but the difficulty is far less in the case of these minerals than it is in the case of other development values because the owners are to get 20s. in the £. I would have hoped that it would have been possible to give me an approximate estimate of that amount.

Mr. Marples: I would have tried to give the hon. Member an answer had he given me notice of the question. In this case most of the negotiations took place when the party opposite were in power and I might, for the convenience of the House summarise the history of these particular Regulations. In 1947 under the Town and Country Planning Act, in the distribution of the £300 million compensation there was a promise of special treatment, what is, unfortunately, called the near-ripe treatment, to mineral undertakers as regards their holding of mineral bearing land.
The next step was on 2nd June, 1949, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement which defined more clearly the principles which would be applied to redeem that promise. Those principles were two-fold. The first principle, broadly speaking, was that for the purpose of winning and working minerals a mineral undertaker—and here I might interpose that an undertaker is a person actually working the minerals—claiming in respect of land held by him on 1st July, 1948, would get special treatment. He was to receive from the £300 million fund a payment equal to the development value for winning and working minerals in his interest in the land. That was the first principle.
The second principle was that the Central Land Board would discuss with the interested parties any question arising out of the decision, and, in particular, whether the development charges could be set off against the payment from the £300 million in those cases. These discussions took place and, in April, 1951, when the Opposition were in power, a White Paper, Com-

mand 8217, was issued, and a memorandum of the draft Regulations proposed.
I should like to say a word about those discussions. First, the Federation of British Industries, and the Country Landowners' Association, negotiated for three years with the then Government. That was a long and arduous task, but it was accomplished successfully in almost every respect, except where the Federation of British Industries could not agree with the Central Land Board, who confines the concession to mineral undertakers owning the freehold or leasehold interest as at July, 1948. But the Federation wanted the concession to apply to mineral undertakers who had the option to purchase, or to take a lease, and, with that one exception, I think that complete harmony prevailed.
The principal purpose of these Regulations is to enable mineral owners and undertakers to continue working without paying a development charge, and without worrying whether their payment from the £300 million will be enough to cover the charge. My hon. Friends would agree, I am sure, that at the moment, until some amendment is made to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, these Regulations must, in principle, go forward. It is hopeless to resist such Regulations unless there is something to put in their place. The matter is not controversial between the parties, and there is the necessity, because of the Town and Country Planning Act, that the Regulations be passed.
I would say to my hon. Friends that the Minister is very carefully considering that Act, and is very well aware of the difficulties which have been voiced so ably tonight; and specially aware that speed is really essential in this problem. I hope, therefore, that the House will give us these Regulations tonight.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I must first say that I completely relieve the Parliamentary Secretary of any responsibility for these Regulations, or for the source from which they spring. He is correct in telling the House that they arise from the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and the provisions under the 1951 Act which were necessary in order to deal with the promise given, not only to mineral owners, but to all types of landowners who were working what has come to be known as near-ripe land. So far as


mineral undertakers are concerned, they are not being dealt with in any way preferentially to builders, or any other persons in the ownership of land.
The necessity for these Regulations, which are not the responsibility of the present Government, but of we on this side of the House, and our predecessors who had been carrying on negotiations of a very difficult and technical nature, is as the Parliamentary Secretary has stated. I join with him in saying that the discussions between the parties worked out amicably on the principles as decided by the then Government following the 1947 Act. The attitude, we found, was that this was a decision of the Government, however much it might be at variance with individual views, and an effort would be made to operate that decision of the Government in a fair manner.
That was the attitude of the parties toward their constituent members. They did that exceptionally well. I think it is equally true that they would be the first to admit that the Ministry of, first, Town and Country Planning and, later, Local Government and Planning, were equally responsive in the way of fair treatment in relation to the principles which had been laid down. Therefore, we accept full responsibility for the Regulations, and I ask the House to accept them.
I wish to point out to hon. Members opposite, who rather tried to put their hon. Friend in a difficult position, that the Regulations take this section of mineral workings right outside Parts VI and VII of the 1951 Act, and, if the Regulations were not passed, the point of view of hon. Members opposite would be very much prejudiced.
Mr. Speaker called to order certain hon. Members for going outside the scope of the debate and referring to future legislation. I do not propose to do that, but I must make one point as the hon. Gentleman has intimated to the House that the Government have under consideration the amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act and, in fact, of the fundamental compensation and betterment basis of the Act. As he has indicated that to the House, I should like to say that the Opposition are prepared to accept that challenge to planning in this country as an Opposition would be expected to accept it. We stand by

the 1947 Act, and in so far as its principles are concerned, any amendment to it will be resisted.
But these Regulations fulfil a promise given to these undertakers and to the House in 1948 and 1949, and, therefore, I ask the House to give them their approval.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I ought to say that I believe I have some indirect personal interests in mineral workings. I wish to mention only two points. The first is whether it is perfectly clear that the Government have not got under serious consideration, and do not propose to make, any change in the part of the Mineral Workings Act relating to ironstone restoration in the Midlands and the Ironstone Restoration Fund.
I gathered that that was what the Parliamentary Secretary said finally, but the matter is one that concerns not only industrial interests but also, to a large and serious extent, the local authorities in that part of the world, including those in my own division, which is probably more affected by these matters than any other in the country.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will interrupt me, as I now invite him to do, to say quite clearly that no change is proposed in the part of the Mineral Workings Act dealing with ironstone restoration.

Mr. Marples: I believe that under the rules of order I have a right to reply to the debate, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will first complete his speech I will reply to him afterwards.

Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged. The second point is that I feel that there is a grievous doubt as to whether these Regulations ought to be necessary, not because in the present state of affairs they are not right and reasonable Regulations, negotiated and agreed under the present Government, but for this reason.
We have been told—quite correctly, so far as my experience goes—by three hon. Members opposite that they have consistently objected to the application of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to minerals and mineral rights. We have been told that they have been considering this matter during all their very long period in Opposition.

Mr. Walker-Smith: When the hon. and learned Member says the "Town and Country Planning Act," surely he means the financial provisions of that Act. There was no reference by myself or any of my hon. Friends to the planning control part of the Town and Country Planning Act.

Mr. Mitchison: This is a mere splitting of words. What I said they objected to was the application of the Town and Country Planning Act to minerals. The hon. Member rises to define, no doubt correctly, the matter out of which that objection arises. I find no difficulty in that, but what I do object to is that. having had those objections for at least three years and having had ample time to consider the matter, the Government get the House to rise early and take an unusually long vacation.
They say that they have the matter under "anxious and urgent consideration" and they come here to introduce Regulations which would be wholly unnecessary if they put before the House the legislation which they appear to be hatching and to have hatched for three or four years. If ever there was a case of introducing unnecessary Regulations instead of keeping the House sitting to put through the legislation this is it, for they have had plenty of time to consider just that case.

Mr. Marples: I think I am right in saying that as the mover of the Motion I have the right to reply, but, if not, then I would ask the House for leave to speak again—

Mr. Ede: Nobody wishes to prevent the hon. Member from speaking, but he made a speech in the middle of the debate and, therefore, he has spoken twice, once in formally moving the Motion and once in debate. But we have no objection to his speaking.

Mr. Marples: While I am always anxious to be courteous, especially to the right hon. Gentleman, in asking leave of the House to speak again, I would like to ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) raised points with me, I was informed that as the mover of the Motion I would have a right to reply.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I have not had time to look this up, but I am of the opinion that nodding does not mean a speech. Therefore, the hon. Member has the right to reply to the debate.

Mr. Marples: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
May I reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering? So far as we are concerned, our main concern is with the operation of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. So far as we are concerned the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, will not be interfered with except only in so far as it is affected by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Our main concern is with that Act and we would like to reassure the hon. and learned Member on that point. With that re-assurance I hope that the House will agree to pass the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Mineral Development Charge Setoff Regulations, 1951, dated 27th September 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th October 1951, in the last Parliament, be approved.

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, SCOTLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Mineral Development Charge Setoff (Scotland) Regulations, 1951, dated 1st October, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th October, 1951, in the last Parliament, be approved.—[Commander Galbraith.]

10.45 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: My purpose in rising is to seek an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who, I believe, is prepared to reply to this Motion, that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring forward amending legislation to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, at the earliest possible moment.
May I remind the House that these Regulations make very definite inroads into the compensation provided under Part V of the Scottish Act of 1947? By the terms of that Act, the global sum, fixed in the corresponding English Act,


was determined, and by the terms of these Regulations a prior claim for payment at 100 per cent. is being given to a certain class of owners. The matter has been debated on the corresponding English Regulations, and I want to seek an assurance that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to regard these Regulations as a temporary measure only, pending a full overhaul of the financial provisions of the 1947 Act.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is considering the matters to which he has referred.

Question put, and agreed to.

HILL SHEEP (COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Agricultural Holdings Act (Variation of Fourth Schedule) Order, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, he approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

10.47 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: While regarding this as a worth-while addition to Part II of the Fourth Schedule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948—as such it is acceptable to this side of the House—I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. The Order follows the recommendation in the second report of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation, and Section 51 of the 1948 Act tells us that the value shall be calculated in accordance with such method, if any, as may be prescribed.
Does the Minister propose to prescribe the method of assessment by Regulation, and, if so—this is the point—does he accept the recommendation of the Committee, to the effect that the amount awarded per breeding sheep should not exceed 15s. per sheep or 15 per cent. Of

the market price, whichever is less? Is he going to lay Regulations before the House?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he asks for. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to accept the recommendations of the advisory committee, and Regulations will be laid soon after this Order has been approved. The Regulations will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure of the House, so that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to study them in due course. I hope that he will be satisfied to agree to the Order now.

Question put, and agreed to.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Dewsbury, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, he approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ashton-in-Makerfield, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Normanton, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Doncaster, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Mr. Llewellyn.]

MATCHES (PRICE CONTROL)

10.53 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Matches (Prices) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 1526), dated 17th August, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th August, 1951, in the last Parliament, be annulled.
This Order was made by the late Government, and laid on the 17th August. It was signed by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I am sorry that we do not have his company in the Chamber this evening. I am extremely glad that my hon. and learned Friend the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade is to reply tonight, because I know the great attention he has given in the past to keeping delegated legislation in proper shape.
I have no objection to the main purpose of this Order, which is to bring about a very slight increase in the price of matches. That is done by permitting manufacturers to remove a small number of matches from the boxes and to charge the same price as they did before. Apparently there has been no public outcry about that so far. Book matches are excluded from the Order. What the Order does is to specify maximum prices for two classes of matches. It specifies a maximum price for boxes of average content between 47 and 50 matches.
In the case of Swan matches it specifies a maximum price for boxes of average content of between 95 and 100 matches. I do not mind that. It specifies no other maximum price. That is where trouble arises, because paragraph 2 of the Order prohibits the sale of matches in boxes of any description where a maximum price has not been provided. It reads:
A person shall not in the course of his business sell any matches in boxes of any description unless a maximum price is provided in this Order or any other Order made by the Board of Trade for matches in boxes of that description.
So, people can sell matches of these two types, in boxes of 50, and in the case of Swan, in boxes of 100, but are pro-

hibited from selling matches in boxes of any other kind.
This rather remarkable result arises; that it is unlawful, under this Order, for a person to sell boxes of matches of an average content of, say, 51 to 54 matches, even though he asks a price no higher than that permitted for boxes of an average content of between 47 and 50. I suggest that this is a quite ridiculous position. For a reason which I cannot understand this Order abolishes the provision in the previous Order of a sliding scale which covered all cases where prices had not been specifically fixed.
Under Statutory Instrument No. 1476, of 1949, there was a sliding scale, which covered the case of any box of matches for which there was no specific price fixed. But now, under this Order, if anyone wished to market boxes of matches of different content, they would have to go to the Board of Trade and get a new Order made to cover them by price control. I do not think that this prohibition can be regarded as merely incidental to price control because, if it had been, then the powers of Regulation 55AB, which is one of the Regulations invoked, would have been sufficient, because that Regulation does enable provision by Order to be made for matters incidental or supplementary.
But it will be seen that the Board of Trade went to the length of invoking another Regulation, not invoked before under the Matches (Control of Prices) Order—Regulation 55—that is, for the general control of industry. Therefore, my point is that if the Board of Trade considered it necessary to invoke Regulation 55, they could not have regarded this prohibition as merely incidental or supplementary to price control.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would explain how that arose, although, of course, this was a matter for which he had no responsibility whatever. I fail to understand why this prohibition, which is quite gratuitous and unnecessary, should have been inserted. I would remind the House that under this Order, if anyone sells matches of a description, which is not specifically price controlled, however low the price he charges, he is committing an offence for which he can go to penal servitude for seven years.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to second the Motion. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will not consider again whether it is really necessary at this time and place to increase the restrictions imposed during the course of the preceding Parliament on matches not merely by bringing prices under control, but by restricting the small range of contents of matches which can be sold.
In the Order No. 1476 of 1949, which this Order replaces, there was for the first time a sliding scale introduced to enable any size of box to be given its proper control price. Is there any real reason why, because the basis is being changed from 50 matches a box to from 47 to 50 matches, that that sliding scale should not be included in the new Order? It appears that it is just as practicable to take the average content of between 47 and 50 matches as the basis on which a sliding scale is calculated as to take a box with an average content of 50 matches. If that be so, there is no reason at all why the new regulation should involve the abolition of that sliding scale and the severe restrictions on the number of types open to the match making industry. If one examines that restriction carefully, it will be seen that it is narrower than would appear at first sight.
A first reading of the Order appears to show that the choice is open between boxes of from 47 to 50 matches or from 95 to 100, but unless the matches are Swan Vestas they must be sold in boxes of from 47 to 50. The Order thus imposes on the trade, or any newcomer to it, one size of match box only. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether it is necessary and incidental to the purposes of price control that an additional and restrictive control should now be introduced.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: My two hon. Friends have emphasized the reasons which lay behind the change, although my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) asked why it was necessary to have such a tight control on the size of the box in which matches can be sold. But why is it necessary to have any

control on such an innocent domestic article like matches?

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Vane: Not many years ago the great match companies sold a variety of boxes. One was smaller than the standard size and one was substantially larger, and was a useful article to have in one's house so that visitors would not put them in their pockets. Beyond that large boxes were made, and marketed in all other countries but this, by the Swedish match company. Is it not a ridiculous and unnecessary control that causes hon. Members in this Chamber to be wasting their time discussing whether a box of matches should have 47 to 50 matches, or a Swan Vestas 95 to 100 matches? Surely manufacturers should be able to put matches in any box they like and charge what they like?

Mr. Nabarro: I share the tougher opposition to this Order as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane). I regard it as fatuous in the extreme that this Chamber should, at five minutes after 11 o'clock at night, be talking about whether we should have 47 or 50 matches in a box. The blame rests fairly on the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) who is not in his place.

Mr. Shackleton: Why?

Mr. Nabarro: Because that hon. Gentleman was responsible for the creation of this bureaucratic monstrosity on 17th August. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend, who succeeded the hon. Gentleman, has not yet found it necessary to quash unnecessary Government expenditure of this kind. My particular objection to this Order is that manifestly there is no scarcity of raw materials for making matchsticks, and there is no scarcity of chemicals for making match heads, but we have suffered from control on matches and various similar commodities for about 10 or 11 years.
It seems to me that the time is now propitious for His Majesty's Government to carry out a review not only of the whole of Government expenditure, but also of the spate of delegated legislation which has been thrust upon this House consistently and continuously for the last


six years. Nobody has yet alluded to the fact that this is Statutory Instrument No. 1526 issued in the year 1951; and as it was issued on 17th August, pro rata that would mean something in the order of 2,300 Statutory Instruments in the course of the full year. I have no doubt whatever that 1,999 of them could adequately be disposed of if a price control of this sort were dispensed with.
It is not only a question of controlling the retail price of matches, the price to the consumer of matches, the wholesale price of matches, the number of matches that may be put in a matchbox, but, as the height of folly, the Board of Trade have now found it necessary to try to control the margin which a wholesaler may earn upon the re-sale of matches to a retailer and the quantity rebate that may be given for lots of less than 90 gross, for lots of between 30 and 90 gross, for lots of from 15 up to 30 gross, and for lots of less than 15 gross.
For many years I have been connected with commerce and with the normal channels of distribution in many trades and industries, and I have learned from long experience that the best way to get the cheapest price for a household commodity or any other manufactured article is to leave it to the channels of free trading distribution, leaving every stage in that chain of distribution to settle its own re-sale margins. By that means we might then be able to buy "Swan Vestas" matches in a shop for something less than 4d. or an ordinary proprietary brand, such as "This England's Glory" box which I have just taken out of my pocket, for something less than 2d.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the Prayer he will do something more than just respond to the technicalities raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor)—and I say that with respect to my hon. Friend. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to justify to the House why he has found it necessary to perpetuate the bureaucratic bumbledom initiated by his predecessor at the Board of Trade and why he does not find this moment timely to tell us that in future we shall have less of this delegated legislation and much more freedom within the trading community.

11.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I hope in the course of my few observations to cover the points raised by the various hon. Members who have spoken. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), who gave notice of the grounds of his objection to the Order in a letter to "The Times."
He is quite right in thinking that the mention of Regulation 55 is due to article 2 of the Order, to which he objects. I agree with him that that article would not have been covered by Regulation 55 AB. In any event, the express power is given in Regulation 55 and it would have been wrong for the Board of Trade not to rely on the Regulation which gave the express power.
I come to the reasons for the Order and to its merits. The Order came into force on 24th August this year and its purpose was, more or less in the words that have been used, to leave the price unchanged but slightly to diminish the average number of matches in the box. This was to provide for the increased cost of manufacture since August, 1949. It was the first rise for over two years.
If matches were to be controlled at all, the hon. Member so far does not object to the Order, but he quite rightly points out that, while previous Orders had provisions for proportionate charges for boxes of different average contents, the present Order, against which he is praying, has a simple prohibition of the use of these boxes of different sizes. Let me tell him at once that the motive for the prohibition was simplicity in the Order. I know that does not cover his objection to it, but it may interest him to know that no one was injured by the prohibition, because so far as we know there were no boxes of different sizes that fell within this prohibition. The persons concerned were informed that if there were a desire to manufacture and sell matches in boxes of different sizes appropriate amendments would be made.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and others who have spoken that a restriction on innovation is certainly not justified for a moment longer than its necessity can be shown, and the Board of Trade, had they thought it necessary to retain the control on the


prices of matches, would have revised the Order in such a way as to remove the particular article to which objection was taken by my hon. Friend.
But we have to consider further whether it is any longer necessary to control the price of matches at all. There is no shortage of matches at present and the imports into this country of both matches and raw materials for their manufacture should in our opinion be sufficient to maintain the existing level of consumption. In these circumstances we were of the opinion, prima facie, that the time had come to withdraw altogether the control of the price of matches as being no longer necessary. We did, however, think it right to have inquiries made before doing so.
Since a large part of the supply of matches is in the control of one group of manufacturers and the supply of matches is now being investigated by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission, the Board of Trade thought it right to obtain an assurance from the Society of British Match Manufacturers that if the Order were revoked the prices charged by their members would not be raised for some time ahead, and would not be raised thereafter without prior consultation, with the Board of Trade. That assurance has been obtained and it is. therefore, the decision of the Board of Trade that this Order should now be revoked. On that promise I would suggest that my hon. Friend should ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Motion.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear. Freedom again.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: It is very interesting, at this late stage of the evening, to see once again the workings out of the policy of the new Government. It is not my intention to cause further anxiety to the Chief Whip and follow the example of some of my colleagues by speaking long, but I think a rather serious step has been taken tonight. The Prayer was moved against this Order on a very narrow ground, namely, that a certain provision in the Order was undesirable and liable to restrict further development in the match trade.
No example was given of anybody wishing to have boxes of matches of different sizes, although I can well understand the hon. Member who said he liked smaller boxes so that he could get them away from his friends more easily. There might be a case for very small boxes and, indeed, very large ones, and probably hon. Members have enjoyed using those extra large matches which can be bought because of the pleasure it gave in striking them.
I can see the force of that particular argument, but remarks then developed into a wider field. One hon. Member complained of the provision in this Order of control over wholesalers' and retailers' margins, and an impassioned plea came for the "freeing" of the trade. I can only say that I hope the present Opposition may soon once again form His Majesty's Government, and that the hon. Member concerned will support us when we attempt to limit retail price maintenance. It is well known that retail price maintenance, as at present in force, is a gross interference with the freedom of trade, and I hope that we shall then get the support of the hon. Member.
Then, there was a sweeping attack on delegated legislation which, it was claimed, was practised by the late Government, and eventually the House was asked to withdraw the Prayer on the grounds that control over the price of matches was unnecessary, while the Parliamentary Secretary added that control should be maintained for the time being during investigation by the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Commission.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I stated that the time had come, in our view, to revoke this Order, but also stated that after making that decision in principle we thought that, in view of the fact that a large part of the supply of matches was in the hands of one group of manufacturers, an assurance regarding prices should be obtained before the revocation was made. That assurance has been given, and the revocation has been decided on.

Mr. Shackleton: Before the Report of the Monopolies Commission?

Mr. Strauss: It is to be made forthwith. I do not know when the Report of the Commission is coming out, but that


will not prevent the Board of Trade from considering any action recommended in the Report.

Mr. Shackleton: This really seems quite extraordinary. It is surely extraordinary that the Parliamentary Secretary should take this definite action pending the Report which might, in fact, recommend something completely different. This Commission is sitting to investigate this subject, and what report will come from it, I do not know. I cannot say, of course, whether the hon. and learned Parliamentary Secretary has any knowledge of that, but it may reveal a very strong case for the maintenance of some sort of control. It is surely extraordinary that there should be this rush to take off a perfectly harmless control which does not inflict hardship on the manufacturers concerned, and which may, indeed, be essential for the protection of the public against profiteering.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is making a very sweeping attack on what has been said. Surely he must recognise that the operation of any control costs public money. To operate that match control means that a large number of Board of Trade inspectors have to snoop all round the country in the manufacturers' premises, in the wholesalers' premises and in the retailers' premises. Why should the taxpayers' money be spent unnecessarily in the operation of a useless Statutory Instrument?

Mr. Shackleton: I do not differ from that point, but the case has yet to be made that this control is not necessary. The Minister should have waited for the report of the Monopolies Commission and we ought then to have had an opportunity to consider the situation in the light of that opinion.

11.21 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I was delighted to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say. I only wish that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) had taken the trouble to consult the Treasury before lie made the Order. I have here the Finance Act, 1940. the last Act to alter the duty on matches. There was a duty on containers of not more than 10 matches and another on containers of more than 10 but not more than 30. The group which we are considering tonight is that with more than 30 but not more than 50.
After that we are allowed to have boxes of matches as large as we like, and the duty is 8s. 4d. for 144 containers. They are not called boxes in the Finance Act. I see no reason why we should not have boxes of matches of any size anybody wants. What the hon. Member was objecting to was the fact that the sale of books of matches is now prohibited.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I observe that at the end the Order revokes a previous Order. If it is intended, as it appears to be intended, to revoke this Order, why did not the Government do it by a simple Order instead of keeping us here all night listening to the views of the Tory anarchist party on the control or decontrol of matches and the right number in a box, book or other container?

11.23 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the very satisfactory answer which he has given tonight and to congratulate him upon this very useful step in the removal of controls. I only wish that he may proceed to remove many more controls in the course of his tenure of office. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Motion made, and question proposed,

"That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: As we have now disposed of the problem whether a box of matches should contain 47 or 50, I want to detain the House for a while to deal with a matter of, perhaps, equal importance, and that is the fact that this country is to a very large extent not paying its way.
Of all the problems that face Great Britain at present, the trade gap is the most important. It must be realised that the Government consider that it is tremendously important, because they have decided to cut the importation of food to the extent of £160 million. I do not think that any Government would have taken


that step just before a Recess of two months and handed out a lot of ammunition to the Socialist Party to use in the two months unless it was a very grave problem.
I am not going to suggest that this is a matter which has happened during the lifetime of the late Government. It is something which has been going on for 30 or 40 years, but in the past the gap has been closed by our investments abroad and by invisible exports. The two world wars have very largely dissipated our investments abroad and we are faced with this problem of having to pay our way in future.
I would suggest that one of the best ways to reduce the trade gap is to produce more food from the land of Great Britain. I think that we in this country are still keeping in our minds the idea of cheap food that obtained in the 19th century will return again. The cheap food of the 19th century will never return and it is about time that this country made up its mind to forget that time. Even as late as the debate on the Gracious Speech the ex-Minister of Food held out hopes of the amount of food that could be brought to this country if the development of our Colonies and Dominions were extended.
I think that sort of thing is doing a great deal of harm. It is comparable to the statement made by the Socialist Party about two or three years ago about the tremendous output of food coming from Africa. But there are many millions of underfed Africans and if they have to do the work necessary to produce that food they will desire better feeding themselves. It is time that we realised that surplus food from Africa does not exist. We have had debates on the development of these Colonies over the past two years and we have squandered money on various schemes—such as groundnuts in Gambia—and I hope that we will not try any more of them.
If we do not face this problem, this country will face starvation or migration on a very vast scale. There are two ways of closing the trade gap—one is by an increase in the export trade and another is by more production from our agricultural land. We say that an increase in our export trade is a complete gamble. To-day, we are facing increasing production in many countries. We hear com-

plaints from industrial representatives of competition from Japan, Germany and other countries and that competition will increase. What this country is faced with is not an increase in export trade but the possibility of a decrease. It is, therefore, about time that we made up our minds to alter the present economic set-up of this country and paid more attention to agricultural policy and less to industrial policy.
Little mention of agriculture was made during the debate on the Gracious Speech, although in that Speech a vigorous policy was promised. I hoped the Minister of Agriculture would have made a vigorous speech then, pointing out what he proposed to do to carry out the proposals in the speech. Possibly my hon. Friend will give us some idea when he replies as to what he proposes to do. We must face the fact that there has been a decline in agricultural production in the last 12 months. There has been a decline in arable land and in horticulture with a drop in egg and milk production. Primarily the reason is that the late Government did not face up to the rising costs of production.
The November Price Review was held after the increased cost of production had risen to £75,000,000, but only £44,000,000 of the increased cost was recognised in the Review. In fact, I understand that when the negotiating committee started they were only prepared to admit 7 per cent. of the increase, but in the end they did get 16 per cent. The impression has been that it was a Review based on a great deal of guesswork, with the help of so-called experts. In the February Price Review I hope that we shall have more practical men, knowing agriculture, dealing with it.
In the last agricultural debate I was accused of having attacked the guaranteed price system. I did nothing of the sort. I said that I had no confidence in the guaranteed price system attempted by a Socialist Government. This is the reason. In the 1947–48 Act it is stated that guaranteed prices will be given for those things that in the national interest should be produced, and we never knew from the ex-Minister what they really meant. It is only lately that the last Government's intention has come to my mind.
The machinery of the Price Review starts in this way: before the N.F.U. and the Ministry of Agriculture start negotia-


tions a committee is set up, comprising officials from the agricultural department of the Ministry of Food, the Treasury, the central economic planning staff, and the economic section of the Cabinet Office. That committee decides the production target. How? What is it that, in the national interest, agriculture should produce? Because that target is set up by people who have no interest in agriculture I have no confidence in the body, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make no use of it in the next February Price Review. I hope he will decide to carry out the Conservative pledge that first place shall be given to the efficient English farmer.
The cause of decreased production was the refusal of the Government to face the increased cost of production, and the increased prices announced last Thursday will not stop the decrease for very long. That is only playing with the problem. Costs have risen by £40 million, and the prices suggested will in no way cover that. When the Price Review committee starts to work they should recognise the increased costs and make adjustments accordingly. It is difficult, because the prices that enable the big mechanised farmer to make a profit are insufficient for marginal land.
Great play is made sometimes about wealthy farmers going about in Rolls-Royce cars. The farmer in a big way, carrying on a great industry, has as much right to a Rolls-Royce as the chairman of one of the nationalised industries; but I was sorry to see, last Thursday, the great difference of opinion that divides the industrial and agricultural sections of the House. It is sad to see that split, and I hope that when Parliament sits again we shall have a day given up to a full-scale debate on farm prices to see if we cannot break down the idea that farmers are "feather-bedded." That idea does a great deal of harm. The industry is losing confidence, and without confidence we cannot get the increased agricultural production we want.
We have to remember that the increased production must come from the marginal land, and if a right price is given the production will come. And if some of the big farmers do make money, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take care of it. Increased production can come from three sources. One is the 16

million acres of land still scheduled as rough grazing; another is common land; the third is land not being farmed efficiently at the moment. I do not know how many people realise that a third of our land is still scheduled as rough grazing, and it is about time we tackled the problem.
I think that we ought to make this a battle operation and start with at least 5,000,000 acres to see what can be done. I have seen many instances in England, Wales, and Scotland of what can be done by individuals. I could give the House details, but that is not necessary because I am sure that my hon. Friend knows as much about these particular cases as I do. I went round Scotland two years ago to see these marginal lands, and I was horrified to see the thousands of potential crop-producing acres. That land was doing nothing.
The next source is common land. My hon. Friends tell me that I am touching dynamite in suggesting that anything should be done with this. I do not think I am, and I have no hesitation in saying that the time has come when our common land ought not to be wasted as it is at present. I do not want to do any harm to the common holder, or to anyone else. What I am suggesting will do the common holder good. I know that it will be necessary to pass an Act of Parliament. We have had many Acts of Parliament in the last six years.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not, in an Adjournment debate, introduce subjects requiring legislation.

Mr. Baldwin: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
I shall content myself by suggesting that the commoners, the agricultural executive committee for the county, and the rural district council ought to be called together so that they could deal with any common land under their jurisdiction. No action could be taken which would suit every common. Every one must be treated on its merits. But there is common land today which is not worth a shilling an acre, while over the fence there is land which is producing £20 to £25 worth of food an acre. It is criminal to allow that land to lie idle.
I am not suggesting that all commons ought to be done away with. We must leave the holiday-maker sufficient verge


at the side of the road upon which he can throw his bottles, cigarette packets, and his paper bags. The rest of the land ought to be brought into production. Why should we be under-fed while such land is producing nothing? I could give many instances of what was achieved in production from common land during the war.
This is the third time that I have raised this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. I hope that this being the third time, and, with the help of a Conservative Government, something will be done. I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will not tell me that I am asking for the impossible, for these are times when the impossible has to be tackled. We have to do things, not to say that they cannot be done. Two or three years ago I broadcast on this matter. This was followed by a fan-mail from all over England saying how right I was, and giving examples of what had been done on common land.
Under-farmed land is another touchy matter. The 1947–48 Act was passed to give security to the good farmer. It has given security to the good and the bad farmer. It is time that the agricultural executive committees were instructed that they must watch the farming and see that they do not uphold bad farming. The fact that this security is extended to the under-average farmer will be that in the course of time the tenant farming system will be done away with, and thus the possibility will be removed of young farmers being able to start farming. Nowadays, because of the rigidity with which this Act is interpreted, few farms become vacant. The result is that every time a farm becomes vacant the owner sells it with vacant possession, and gets a fantastic price. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to tackle this position.
In reply to a Question a few days ago the Minister of Agriculture said there were over 1,500 farmers today still under supervision. I suggest that the taxpayer of this country cannot afford to provide nursemaids for those farmers under supervision. They should be told that they will have a period, one or two years, in which to bring their farms back into production, and if they are not able to do it without having someone there telling them

how to, it is time they made way for someone else.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not take the same line as the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) took on the occasions when I raised this matter with him, by reminding me of the marginal land scheme and the Livestock Rearing Act. I know about this legislation, but what we want behind these Acts is a little more jet propulsion. If we tackle our land like a battle operation, we could feed 40,000,000 people now. I think we can increase production by 200,000,000 tons a year. That would make a tremendous contribution towards closing the trade gap. Some time ago I had the pleasure of showing some farmers from overseas around the House, and they told me they were astounded to see the waste land in this country. They thought we must be mental—and I did not argue with them.
Not only is it important from the point of view of closing the trade gap, but it is tremendously important from the defence point of view. It is no good spending £4,700,000,000 on armaments and training men unless we have the reserves of food in this country with which to feed them. Twice in our lifetime we have nearly faced defeat by starvation and we are heading for another defeat if war comes again. It comes like a bolt from the blue, and our shipping could be put off the seas. If we have not a reserve of food, the war will be over so far as we are concerned.

11.42 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) for taking the interest he has in this matter of feeding the nation. We all know how deeply he feels about the problem of food production and farmers' problems generally. Although I cannot agree with everything he has said, at least I sympathise with his general interest and endeavour to get the greatest possible production of food.
The first point he made was with regard to the machinery of the Annual Price Review. He called attention to what he regarded as a serious decline in the volume of food production. I think my hon. Friend, in his anxiety, has perhaps a little overstated the position. It


is true that the September returns have shown some sign, in one or two aspects, of a slowing up of the expansion programme. But it would not be true to say that they threw up a situation where there was a serious decline. The system of guaranteed prices and guaranteed markets for the main agricultural products is, I think, generally agreed by everybody to be the basis of our farming economy today, and to be the best basis.
It is not perfect, of course. But no system devised by human beings would be perfect. It has been running now for some years and was given statutory effect in 1947. I would say, by and large, that during these years there has been a general development of our farms and the volume of food produced on them has increased.
I agree that the system has been under strain for the past two or three years while prices have been rising continuously and so steeply. Nevertheless, with all the defects we may attribute to it, it is a system which is serving us well. I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that it is to the advantage of the farming community to keep it in action. In the settlement of the Special Price Review which my right hon. Friend made last week, surely he showed that he understood the need for farmers to recoup, where a sudden substantial rise in costs has occurred, in order to maintain the status quo.
In the short time available I cannot go as deeply as I should like into the philosophy underlying the system of guaranteed prices and markets. I must pass on to the next important point which my hon. Friend raised—that about the use of commons. A number of these commons have been brought into production and have yielded useful crops during the past 10 or 11 years. In the past few years the less productive of them have been allowed to go out of production and the requisition has been removed, but there are still some 13,000 acres of common land under requisition and in useful production.
I can relieve my hon. Friend of his anxiety about the immediate danger of their going out of cultivation. The power to keep them under requisition flows from the Defence Regulations and lasts until 1954. My right hon. and gallant Friend

is now considering the desirability of extending the requisition beyond the end of next year, and in the meantime I can assure my hon. Friend that his point about the potential food production of the commons is very much in the mind of my right hon. and gallant Friend.
Turning to the question of marginal land, I bear in mind my hon. Friend's caution that I should not remind him about the Hill Farming Act or the Livestock Rearing Act. Surely that caution is a little unfair, however, because a lot of useful work has been done under those two Acts to bring into production a good deal of marginal land. There have been no fewer than 5,373 schemes that have either started or are now being considered for a start, and these cover no less than 41 million acres. That is quite a substantial start.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Under a Labour Government.

Mr. Nugent: Let credit be given where credit is deserved. This is bringing land into production for the good of us all, and surely there is everything right in acknowledging it.
The point I want to make to my hon. Friend is that, to my mind that is a very substantial start. What we have to bear in mind in any of these schemes for bringing marginal land into production is that for their development a great deal of labour, of machinery, of seeds, of fertiliser, as well as the building of dwelling houses and roads, is necessary.

Mr. Baldwin: I do not doubt that figure of 4½million acres, but could my hon. Friend explain why we still have 16 million acres scheduled as rough grazing? That figure has stood for many years; it does not seem to reduce. Are we getting a little more land reclaimed somewhere?

Mr. Nugent: The whole of the 4½million acres is not rough grazing. Some is marginal land which was not classified as rough grazing. The figure for rough grazing used to be 17 million acres. It may be that there has been some reduction in that direction. My hon. Friend knows that a very large part of the 17 million acres of rough grazing consists of the hills and mountains of Scotland, where we could not possibly grow any-


thing by any amount of cultivation. It throws the picture completely out of perspective to suggest that the greater part of that could be brought into cultivation.
Before my hon. Friend interrupted I was making this point: by all means let us recognise that there is still more scope for bringing more marginal land into production, but in saying that let us recognise that we must have a reasonable assurance that we shall get a fair return in food production for the scarce resources we must engage in order to do the work.
Perhaps I may conclude briefly with a few remarks on the problem of under-farmed land. Here again, we have a difficult problem. We all recognise that a certain number of farms are under-farmed, could be farmed better and could produce more, and all responsible members of the farming community, I am sure, would be with us in wishing to see those farms produce to their maximum. The system which we have, which is well and fairly operated by the county committees, of trying to bring up those B and C farms is the best that can be devised at present.
In operating it they must give the tenant or the owner-occupier a fair chance. I am sure that public opinion in the country, and hon. Members in the House, would demand that. It means that in practice the committee must first have a period of supervision. They must then give the farmer every chance to show whether he can improve, and they must always bear in mind that eventually they must go before the independent Agricultural Land Tribunal if the tenant appeals against an order for dispossession. With this kind of safeguard it is not possible to proceed very much faster than we are now proceeding, but if we can find a way of doing so I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall adopt it.
In conclusion, may I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestions for getting greater production and assure him that my right hon. and gallant Friend is actively considering the whole problem—and, indeed, will be fortified by the suggestions which my hon. Friend has made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.